Delhi District Court
State vs Waseem on 16 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL SAINI,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
DLSH020026362020
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.:09/2020
Police Station: Jyoti
Nagar
(Cr.Case No.1347/2020)
b Date of the commission of : 10.01.2020
the offence
c Name of the Complainant : HC Raj Kumar
d Name of Accused person : WaseemS/o Nazbul Hasan
and his parentage and R/o: Village Taren Gadi
residence Pura, Near Mazar PS
Ramchandra Mission,
District Shahjahanpur, UP
and House No. 245,Gali no.
5, Near Jama Masjid,
Kardampuri, Delhi.
e Offence complained of : u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act
f Plea of the Accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted u/s 25/54/59 of
Arms Act
h Order reserved on : 16.04.2026
i Order pronounced on : 16.04.2026
J Argued by Shri Arun Kumar Mavi, Ld.
APP for the State
Shri Abbas Khan, Ld.
counsel for the accused.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
2026.04.16
16:08:26
+0530
State vs. Waseem
FIR No. 09/2020
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 1 of 17
Brief statement of facts of the case and trial proceedings:
1.The case of the Prosecution against accused Waseem S/o Nazbul Hasan is that on 10.01.2020 at about 3.10 pm, near Metro Pillar No. 254, Near Shisu Kendra, Kardampuri, Service Road, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar, accused was found in possession of one pistol and four live cartridges as detailed in seizure memo without having any licence or permit to keep the same. On the said allegations, accused was booked with the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act and FIR was registered.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Accused on 05.03.2020 whereupon Cognizance was taken in this matter on 06.01.2022. The copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused on his appearance on 18.02.2022 and charge was framed against the Accused for offences punishable under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act on 30.06.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Subsequently, Prosecution evidence was led and in order to prove its version, Prosecution has cited 08 witnesses out of which prosecution has examined four witnesses.
PW 1ASI Raj Kumar:- He deposed that on 10.01.2020, he along with SI Ravi Kumar, Ct. Anuj, Ct. Pavit and Ct. Sanchit were on patrolling duty in the jurisdiction of North East as per DD no. 9, which is Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that during patrolling duty, they reached under the fly over Gokalpuri and at Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
State vs. Waseem 2026.04.16
16:08:37
FIR No. 09/2020 +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 2 of 17
about 2.15 pm, one secret informer met him and he informed that a person who was having illegal arm had fired in air in the area of Kardampuri and he was absconding in the case of firing and he would come on red and black colour discover motorcycle to meet his friend at about 3 pm at Kardampuri Service road near Shishu Kendra, Kardampuri, Delhi and if raid would be conducted, then he would be apprehended. After that, he had shared this information to Inspector Incharge Special staff and he instructed him to take appropriate action immediately. Thereafter, he shared this information to the other staff members and prepared a raiding team including him, secret informer and above mentioned staff. After that, he had requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and went away without telling their names and addresses. He could not serve notice to those public persons who refused to join due to paucity of time. After that, they reached at Kardampuri Service road near Shishu Kendra,Kardampuri at about 2.40 pm where he had also requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and went away without telling their names and addresses. He could not serve notice to those public persons who refused to join due to paucity of time. After that he had given instructions to raiding party to take their position. He and secret informer had hidden themselves near the road and waiting for the said person at about 3.10 pm, a person came on red and black colour discover motorcycle from the side of Gokalpuri Fly over and going towards Kardampuri Service road and after seeing the said person, secret informer pointed out towards him by stating that Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
State vs. Waseem 2026.04.16
16:08:47
FIR No. 09/2020 +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 3 of 17
he was the same person. Thereafter, he with the help of Ct. Anuj and Ct. Pavit apprehended the said person and other staff also reached there. After interrogation, he revealed his name as Waseem. After that he had taken search of Waseem and recovered one pistol from left side dub of his wearing pant. He opened the said pistol with the help of catch and taken out magazine inside the said pistol and found four live cartridges were lying in the said magazine and 7.65 kf was written on the bottom of the said live cartridges. Thereafter, he had put said pistol, magazine and live cartridge upon white colour paper and prepared their sketch memos which is Ex. PW1/B and took measurement of the said pistol, magazine and live cartridges and mentioned the same in the sketch memo Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, he put the above mentioned case property in a transparent box and wrapped the same with the help of doctor tape and sealed the same with the seal of RK. After use the seal was handed over to Ct. Pavit. The seizure memo of the case property is Ex. PW1/C and he also seized the discover motorcycle bearing no. DL 5SAA 5235 vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D and had prepared rukka which is Ex. PW1/E and handed over it to Ct. Anuj for registration of the FIR and he went to PS. After registration of the FIR, Ct Anuj came back at the spot and he handed over copy of the FIR and original rukka to him. In the meanwhile, IO/ASI Jaibeer Singh reached at the spot and he handed over the accused and case property with documents to the IO. IO prepared site plan at their instance which is Ex. PW1/F. IO recorded his supplementary statement and relieved him.
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2026.04.16 16:08:56 +0530 State vs. Waseem FIR No. 09/2020 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 4 of 17 He had identified the accused as well as the case property Ex. P1 (Colly.). He had also identified the 4 photographs of the motorcycle which are Ex. P2(Colly.).
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he had recorded DD No. 9 while leaving the special Staff office. Secret informer had met him on the same day. The secret informer had left the spot after pointing out towards the accused. Secret informer did not know the accused prior to the incident and he had no enmity with the accused. He further deposed that he had left the Special Staff office at about 1.30 pm and reached at the spot at about 3.00 pm. Witness admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and he had not given any information of arrest of accused to his family members/relatives. Witness further admitted 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 and further that he did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo.
No public person was present while conducting search of the accused. Witness admitted that the rough sketch memo of the case property was prepared. Further, he handed over rukka to Ct. Anuj at around 4.50 pm and came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 5.30 pm. IO prepared site plan at about 6.00 pm. No videography and photography was made at the time of recovery of the case property.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
2026.04.16
16:09:06
State vs. Waseem +0530
FIR No. 09/2020
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 5 of 17
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 requested any public persons to join the investigation or that the accused was arrested in the present matter on the behest of the one Waseem @ Bhura who was involved in some other case with the accused and the case property i.e. pistol was planted upon the accused after taking it from the PS. PW:2: HC Pavit :- He had deposed the similar facts as deposed by PW1 ASI Raj Kumar as they both were on patrolling duty together. He deposed that IO had interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo and personal search memos which are Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B and also recorded disclo- sure statement of accused which is Ex. PW2/C. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness could not recall whether DD entry was recorded while leaving special Staff office as he went along with HC Raj Kumar. Further he had left the Special Staff office at about 1.35 pm and reached at the spot at about 2.40 pm. Witness admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and go- ing there and that no written notice was served upon any public persons who refused to join.
He had deposed the similar facts as deposed by PW1 ASI Raj Kumar in his cross examination.
RAHUL
SAINI
Digitally signed
State vs. Waseem by RAHUL SAINI
FIR No. 09/2020 Date: 2026.04.16
16:09:16 +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 6 of 17
PW3:- ASI Mohd. Irfan:- He deposed that on
21.01.2020, he had received the sealed pullanda with the seal of RK from MHC(M) vide road Certificate No. 10/21/2020 dated 21.01.2020 which is Ex. PW3/A and went to FSL Rohini and de- posited the same and had received acknowledgement receipt of deposition which is Ex. PW3/B. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused witness had denied the suggestion that he had not received any case property from MHC(M) or that he never deposited any case property at FSL Rohini.
PW:4 SI Jaibeer Singh:- He deposed that on 10.01.2020, he had received DD no. 13 regarding recovery of illegal arms which is Ex. PW4/A. Thereafter, he went to the spot i.e. Pillar no.254 near Shishu Kendra, Kardampuri Service Road, Delhi where he met HC Raj Kumar, Ct. Anuj and Ct. Pavit and they handed over the accused, case property in sealed pullanda, one motorcycle bearing No. DL 5SAA 5235 with documents to him. After that, he interrogated accused who revealed his name as Waseem. Thereafter, he had prepared site plan at the instance of the HC Raj Kumar which is already Ex. PW1/F and recorded statement of HC Raj Kumar and relieved him. After that he had arrested accused vide arrest memo and personal search memo which are already Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B and also recorded disclosure statement of accused which is already Ex. PW2/C. Thereafter, they along with accused and case property went to PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
State vs. Waseem 2026.04.16
16:09:25
FIR No. 09/2020 +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 7 of 17
was sent to lock up. After that, he had recorded statement of Ct. Anuj and Ct. Pavit and relieved them. On the next day, he had produced the accused before the court and sent him to J/C. He further deposed that during investigation, he had sent the case property to FSL Rohini through HC Irfan.
He further deposed that on 1.10.2021, he had received the result of the FSL report and obtained Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act from DCP concerned and prepared supplementary chargsheet and same was submitted before the court.
Witness had identified the accused and case property which is Ex.P1 (Colly.) and the 4 photographs of the motorcycle which are Ex. P2(Colly.).
During cross examination, by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he had left the Special Staff office at about 5.30 pm and reached at the spot at about 3.00 pm. Witness admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and that he had not given any information of arrest of accused to his family members/relatives and further 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 he did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo. He deposed that no public person was present at the time of search of the accused. Witness admitted that the rough sketch memo of the case property was prepared. Further, he had prepared site plan at about 6.15 pm. No Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs. Waseem SAINI Date:
2026.04.16 FIR No. 09/2020 16:09:35 +0530 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 8 of 17 videography and photography was made by recovery witnesses at the time of recovery of the case property. 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 had requested any public persons to join the investigation. He had denied the suggestion that the accused was arrested in the present matter on the behest of the one Waseem @ Bhura who was involved in some other case with the accused or that the case property i.e. pistol was planted upon the accused after taking it from the PS. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 10.02.2026, witnesses mentioned at Sl. No. 4 ASI Virender and Sl. No. 5 HC Bhullan Tyagi were dropped from the list of witnesses as accused has admitted the genuineness of the FIR, along with Certificate u/s 65-B of IEA which is Ex. A1(Colly), DD No. 9 and 13 dated 10.01.2020 are already Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW4/A which is also Ex. A2(Colly.) qua the present case in his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 10.02.2026, PW Ct. Anuj is dropped from the list of witnesses as he had played the same role as that of HC Pavit.
4. After the conclusion of the Prosecution evidence, statement of Accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 17.02.2026 separately wherein Accused claimed to be innocent Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2026.04.16 State vs. Waseem 16:09:44 +0530 FIR No. 09/2020 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 9 of 17 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. Counsel for the Accused as well Ld. APP for the State.
Appreciation of Evidence
5. The arguments were addressed by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel 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.
6. Vehemently, denying the arguments of Ld. APP for the State, Ld. Counsel 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. Counsel 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. Counsel for the Accused strongly argued for acquittal of the Accused in this matter.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
State vs. Waseem SAINI Date:
2026.04.16
FIR No. 09/2020 16:09:54
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 10 of 17
+0530
Submissions have been duly heard. Record has been carefully perused.
7. Final arguments heard.
8. 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.
09. 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 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
State vs. Waseem 2026.04.16
16:10:04
FIR No. 09/2020 +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 11 of 17
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 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.
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2026.04.16 16:10:14 +0530 State vs. Waseem FIR No. 09/2020 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 12 of 17 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 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 OF [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.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
State vs. Waseem SAINI Date:
2026.04.16
FIR No. 09/2020 16:10:24
+0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 13 of 17
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..."
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.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
2026.04.16
16:10:35
State vs. Waseem +0530
FIR No. 09/2020
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 14 of 17
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 and Ex. PW1/C. The sketch memo of the pistol, magazine and live cartridges are Ex. PW1/B and seizure memo of the same are Ex. PW1/C and bear the number of FIR. As per the rukka and testimony of witnesses, the sketch memos of the country made pistol and cartridge 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.
13. 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."
RAHUL
SAINI
Digitally signed
by RAHUL SAINI
Date: 2026.04.16
16:10:45 +0530
State vs. Waseem
FIR No. 09/2020
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 15 of 17
14. 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 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.
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2026.04.16 16:10:55 State vs. Waseem +0530 FIR No. 09/2020 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 16 of 17 Conclusion
15. 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.
16. In view of above said discussion, the Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Accused Waseem S/o Nazbul Hasan stands acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act framed in the present case. Case property be confiscated to the State. Same be destroyed.
17. Accused is directed to furnish the bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C.
18. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2026.04.16 Announced in an open court 16:11:05 +0530 on 16.04.2026 (Rahul Saini) JMFC-08(Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16.04.2026 [This judgment contains 17 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.] State vs. Waseem FIR No. 09/2020 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 17 of 17