Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj@Gulla on 29 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL SAINI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
DLSH020063332023
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.:472/2022
Police Station: Jyoti Nagar
(CIS No. 3622/2023)
b Date of the commission of : 08.07.2022
the offence
c Name of the Complainant : Ct.Dharampal
d Name of Accused person : Manoj @ Gulla S/o Lt. Rishi
and his parentage and Pal R/o: B-62, Gali No. 3,
residence West Jyoti Nagar, North East,
Delhi.
e Offence complained of : u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
f Plea of the Accused and : Not guilty.
his examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted
h Order reserved on : 29.10.2025
i Order pronounced on : 29.10.2025
Brief statement of facts of the case and trial proceedings:
1.The case of the prosecution against the accused Manoj @ Gulla S/o Late Shri Rishi Pal is that on 08.07.2022, at 4.30 am, under Fly Over, Meet Nagar, Delhi accused Manoj @ Gulla S/o Late Shri Rishi Pal was found in possession of one buttondar knife in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration. On the said allegations, accused was booked Digitally signed by RAHUL State vs. Manoj @Gulla RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
FIR No. 472/2022 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 2025.10.29 15:28:24 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 1 of 14 +0530 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 05.06.2023 and cognizance was taken. On the same day, the copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Thereafter, vide order 20.03.2024, charge was framed against the accused under Section 25/27/54/59 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 i.e. PW1 Ct, Sandeep, PW2 HC Kapil, PW3 Ct. Dharampal and PW4 HC Satender.
4. It is pertinent to note that PW3 WHC Poonam was dropped from the list of witnesses on account of statement of the accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C dated 11.02.2025, wherein he admitted the registration of FIR along with Certificate u/s 65-B of IEA which is Ex. A1(Colly).
5. A detailed scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses has been done and is hereby discussed in detail.
PW: 1: Ct. Sandeep:- He deposed that on 08.07.2022, he along with Ct. Dharam Pal were on patrolling duty in the area of Beat No. 5, Meet Nagar, Delhi. During patrolling duty, they reached under Fly over Meet Nagar, near railway line at about 4.30 pm, they saw one person was coming from the side of Railway line Ashok Nagar and after seeing them in uniform he turned back and moved fastly. On suspicion, he with the help of Ct. Dharampal had apprehended the said person who revealed his State vs. Manoj @Gulla Digitally FIR No. 472/2022 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act signed by RAHUL PS Jyoti Nagar RAHULPages 2 of 14 SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.10.29 15:28:40 +0530 name as Manoj @ Gulla. Thereafter, they interrogated him and asked him as to why he had turned back after seeing them but he did not give any satisfactory answer. Thereafter, Ct. Dharampal took cursory search of the accused and recovered one buttondar knife from right pocket of his wearing pant. He further deposed in his examination that Ct. Dharampal gave information to duty officer regarding recovery of buttondar knife. After sometime, HC Satender came there and they handed over the accused and the case property to HC Satender. HC Satender recorded the statement of Ct. Dharampal. Thereafter, HC Satender had requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none had agreed and left the spot without telling their names and addresses. HC Satender put the said buttondar knife on blank paper and prepared its sketch memo and HC Satender took measurement of the knife i.e. total length of the knife is 31.8 cm, length of the blade was 14.6 cms, length of the handle was 17.2 cms, width of the blade of the knife was 2.6 cms. Thereafter, HC Satender put the said knife in a transparent box and sealed the same with the doctor tape and sealed the same with the seal of MK. HC Satender prepared seizure memo of the said knife which is Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, HC Satender had prepared rukka and same was handed over to Ct. Dharampal for registration of the FIR. After registration of the FIR, Ct. Dharam Pal along with the IO/HC Kapil came at the spot and HC Satender handed over the accused, case property along with documents to the IO. Thereafter, IO interrogated accused and IO recorded disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW1/B. IO prepared site plan at the spot. IO bound down the accused in Digitally signed by State vs. Manoj @Gulla RAHUL RAHUL SAINI FIR No. 472/2022 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act SAINI Date:
2025.10.29 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 3 of 14 15:28:51 +0530 the present matter. Thereafter, they went to PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana. IO recorded his statement.
Witness had correctly identified the accused as well as the case property i.e. knife is Ex. P1.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he had left the PS at about 9 pm and had reached at the spot at about 4.30 am. He admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and that no written notice was served upon any public persons who refused to join. He further admitted that seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of the FIR and nothing was changed after registration of the FIR. He further admitted that IO did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo. He further deposed in his cross examination that IO did not seize the clothes of the accused in the present matter. Ct. Dharampal left the spot with the rukka at around 5.00 am and came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 6.00 am.
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 never visited at the spot and all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS. PW: 2: HC Kapil:- He deposed that on 08.07.2022, he had received copy of the registered FIR and original rukka from Ct. Dharampal and further investigation was marked to him as per the directions of the SHO and he along with Ct. Dharampal reached at near Ashok Nagar Fly over where he met Ct. Sandeep and HC Satender and they handed over accused and case State vs. Manoj @Gulla Digitally FIR No. 472/2022 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act signed by RAHUL PS Jyoti Nagar RAHUL Pages SAINI4 of 14 SAINI Date:
2025.10.29 15:28:59 +0530 property with documents to him. Thereafter, he had interrogated accused and recorded his disclosure statement which is already Ex. PW1/B and prepared site plan at the spot at the instance of HC Satender which is Ex. PW2/A. He had bound down the accused in the present matter vide memo Ex. PW2/B. Thereafter, they went to PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana. Thereafter, he had recorded statement of HC Satender, Ct. DharamPal and Ct. Sandeep and relieved them. During investigation, he had collected DAD notification dated 29.10.1980 which is Ex. PW2/C. After completion of investigation, he had prepared chargesheet and same was submitted before the court.
Witness had correctly identified the accused as well as the case property i.e. knife Ex. P1 During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he did not make any separate departure entry prior to leaving PS. He had left the PS at about 5.40 pm and reached at the spot at about 6.15 pm. He admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and that no written notice was served upon any public persons who 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. He further admitted that he did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo. Witness had further deposed during his cross examination that no videography or 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 is falsely implicated in State vs. Manoj @Gulla FIR No. 472/2022 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Digitally signed by PS Jyoti Nagar PagesRAHUL RAHUL 5 of 14 SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.10.29 15:29:07 +0530 the present matter and 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 never conducted fair investigation in the present matter.
PW3: Ct. Dharampal:- He had deposed the similar facts as deposed by PW1. He deposed that HC Satender had recorded his statement which is Ex. PW3/A and prepared its sketch memo which is Ex. PW3/B. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he had left the PS at about 7 pm and reached at the spot at about 7.15 am. He admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and that no written notice was served upon any public persons who refused to join. Further, he admitted that 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. He had left the spot with the rukka at around 6.45 am and came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 7.00 am. He admitted that no videography and photography was done 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 is 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 or that all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS. Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
State vs. Manoj @Gulla 2025.10.29
15:29:14
FIR No. 472/2022 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 6 of 14
PW: 4 HC Satender:- He deposed that 08.07.2022, he had received DD No. 21A regarding recovery of buttondar knife and reached at the spot i.e. under Fly over Meet Nagar, near Rly. Line where he met Ct. Dharampal and Ct. Sandeep and they handed over the case property and accused persons to him. Thereafter, he interrogated the accused who revealed his name as Manoj @ Gulla. He recorded statement of Ct. Dharampal which is already Ex. PW3/A and had requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and left the spot without telling their names and addresses. Thereafter, he had put said buttondar knife on blank paper and prepared its sketch memo which is Ex. PW3/B and took measurement of the knife i.e. total length of the knife is 31.8 cm, length of the blade was 14.6 cms, length of the handle was 17.2 cms, width of the blade of the knife was 2.6 cms. After that, he put the said knife in a transparent box and sealed the same with the doctor tape and sealed the same with the seal of MK and had prepared seizure memo of the said knife which is already Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, he had prepared rukka which is Ex. PW4/B and same was handed over to Ct. Dharampal for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to PS and got registered the FIR in the present matter. After registration of the FIR, Ct. Dharampal along with IO/HC Kapil went to the spot and he handed over the accused, case property along with documents to the IO. IO prepared site plan which is already Ex. PW2/A . IO recorded his supplementary statement.
Witness had correctly identified the accused as well as the case property Ex. P1.
During cross examination by the accused witness deposed that he had left the PS at about 5.00 am and reached at the spot State vs. Manoj @Gulla Digitally signed by FIR No. 472/2022 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar Pages SAINI Date: 7 of 14 2025.10.29 15:29:23 +0530 at about 5.10 am. He admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and that no written notice was served upon any public persons who refused to join. Further he admitted that 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. Ct. Dharampal left the spot with the rukka at around 6.45 am and came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 7.00 am. No videography and photography was done at the time of recovery of the case property.
He 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 never visited at the spot and all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS.
6. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 03.09.2025 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.
Appreciation of Evidence
7. The arguments were addressed by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused in detail.
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
State vs. Manoj @Gulla 2025.10.29
15:29:30
FIR No. 472/2022 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 8 of 14
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. 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.
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 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 State vs. Manoj @Gulla FIR No. 472/2022 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Digitally signed by RAHUL PS Jyoti Nagar Pages RAHUL 9 of 14 SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.10.29 15:29:37 +0530 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.
Considering the above facts, it comes out that there was no lack of time and opportunity with the IO to associate some Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs. Manoj @Gulla SAINI Date:
2025.10.29 FIR No. 472/2022 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 15:29:45 +0530 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 10 of 14 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 facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful..."
RAHUL SAINI Digitally signed by State vs. Manoj @Gulla RAHUL SAINI Date: 2025.10.29 FIR No. 472/2022 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 15:29:56 +0530 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 11 of 14
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/A and Ex.PW3/B. The sketch memo of the knife Ex. PW3/B and seizure memo of the knife Ex. PW1/A bear the number of FIR. As per the rukka and testimony of witnesses, the sketch memo of the knife and seizure memo were prepared prior to registration of FIR. If that be so then it is questionable as to how Ex. PW1/A and Ex.PW3/B 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 State vs. Manoj @Gulla Digitally FIR No. 472/2022 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act signed by RAHUL PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 12 of 14 RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.10.29 15:30:04 +0530 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 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
State vs. Manoj @Gulla signed by
RAHUL
FIR No. 472/2022 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 13 of 14
2025.10.29
15:30:12
+0530
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 Manoj @ Gulla S/o Late Shri Rishi Pal is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act framed in the present case. Case property be confiscated to the State. Same be destroyed.
16. Accused is directed to furnish the bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary Digitally compliance. signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
Announced in the open court 2025.10.29 15:30:28 +0530 on 29.10.2025 (Rahul Saini) Judicial Magistrate First Class-08(Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts,Delhi 29.10.2025 [This judgment contains 14 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.] State vs. Manoj @Gulla FIR No. 472/2022 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 14 of 14