Delhi District Court
State vs Jitendra And Anr on 2 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Cr Cases 8939/2019
STATE Vs. JITENDRA AND ANR.
FIR No. 102/2019
Police Station : Chanakaya Puri
ID number of the case : 8939/2019
Date of commission of : 15.09.2019
offence
Date of institution of the case : 25.10.2019
Name of the complainant : HC Anant
Name of accused and : 1. Jitendra
address s/o Sh.Amar Nath
R/o A-55B,
Gurugobind Singh Kunj,
DDA Flat Type-A,
Tagpr Garden Ext.
Murga Market Raghuvir
Nagar
New Delhi.
: 2. Manish Yadav @ Paras
s/o Sh.Satpal Yadav
R/o H No. C-185,
Raghuvir Nagar
Delhi. (Since Absconder)
Offence complained of or : 25/54/59 Arms Act
proved
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 02.05.2026
Digitally signed
by ANIMESH
KUMAR Page 1 of 12
ANIMESH Date:
KUMAR 2026.05.02
18:15:49
+0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 15.09.2019 at 01:45 PM, near Budha Garden, Gate No. 1 & 2, Ring Road, Chanakyapuri, Jitendra S/o Sh. Amar Singh was found in possession of one button actuated knife having total length of 24 cm and accused Manish Yadav @ Paras s/o Sh.Satpal Yadav was found in possession of one button actuated knife having total length of 29 cm in contravention of notification no. F-13/451/179 (Home-General) dated 29.10.1980 issued by the Delhi Administration.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed and the accused persons were consequently summoned. During the trial, the accused Manish Yadav @ Paras was declared absconder by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2023.
3. Charge for the offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused Jitendra to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution has examined four witnesses. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution were the police officials. PW-1 HC Anant is the recovery and eye-witness of the present case. He had alleged caught the accused persons red handed with the knife and witnessed the entire proceedings (i.e. Page 2 of 12 preparation of sketch, seizure memo, site plan, sealing of case property, arrest of the accused etc.) conducted by the IO.
5. PW-3 ASI Babu Lal was the investigating officer of the present case.
He along with PW-2 Ct. Laxman had reached at the spot after receiving information about the apprehension of the accused and recovery of knives from their possession. IO had carried out the remaining proceedings (i.e. preparing the site plan, arresting the accused, recording his disclosure statement etc.).
6. PWs correctly identified the accused Jitendra in the Court and the case property which was produced in the Court in sealed condition. All the PWs were duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
7. Following documents were tendered during the evidence of these witnesses -
(i) PW-1/A - Statement of HC Anant
(ii) PW-1/B & PW-1/B1-Sketches of knife
(iii) PW-1/C & PW1-C1 -Seizure memos
(iv) PW-1/D - seizure memo of scooty
(v) PW-1/E - Site Plan
(vi) PW-1/F & PW-1/G - Disclosure statements
(vii) P1 and P2 - Knives
(viii) PW-3/A and PW-3/B -- Arrest memos
(ix) PW-3/C and PW-3/D- Personal search memos
8. Statement of accused Jitendra was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC., wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused, to which he denied the allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the case property has been falsely implanted upon Page 3 of 12 him. Further, the accused did not wish to lead defence evidence.
9. Final Arguments heard. Case file perused.
10. I have perused the record and heard the arguments. 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.
11. I have heard the submissions and have also carefully gone through the entire material available on record and evidence led on behalf of the prosecution.
12. 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.
13. 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 Page 4 of 12 the fairness of the investigation.
14. From the overall testimony of the witnesses, it appears that no sincere efforts, have been made to join the public persons in the investigation. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are 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, 1989 Cri.L.J. 127.
15. In the instant case, it should be noted that the recovery was effected from the accused at around around 01:45 PM from a public place. The eye witness / recovery witness PW-1 had stated that public persons were present at the spot at the time of the recovery. However, interestingly, not even a single public witness was joined in the investigation. However, 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 Page 5 of 12 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 in the police proceedings. Failure on the part of the police officials to make sincere effort to join public witnesses for the 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 wit- nesses. 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 shop- keepers 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 in- vestigation 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 the police officials during the course of investigation Page 6 of 12 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 testimo- ny of the police officials, merely because they be- long to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some in- dependent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, how- ever, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since 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 scru- tiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trust- worthy 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: Page 7 of 12
"In a given case it may so happen that no such person is available or, even if available, is not will- ing 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 exam- ined 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 avail- able 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 testimonies of the police officials if their testimonies are found to be reliable and trustworthy.
20. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, PWs did not even make any endeavor to join the public witnesses. It would become all the more relevant in light of the fact that the alleged recovery was effected from a public place. It would become all the more important in light of the fact that no photography or the videography of the recovery proceeding was conducted by the complainant.
21. Further, the prosecution did not tender in evidence necessary DD Page 8 of 12 entry of departure of the complainant from the police station. 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.
22. 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. 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 reserva- tions. 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, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
23. In the instant case, the departure entry of the complainant from the police station on patrolling duty was not tendered in evidence. No explanation was provided by the prosecution on this aspect. Page 9 of 12
24. Also, as per the materials available on record, the police officials had also not produced the knife before the concerned Court after the recovery u/s 52 Cr.P.C when the accused was produced after arrest. Since all the witnesses are police personnel and the 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.
25. Further, PW-1 (the recovery witness) in his testimony did not state that he had offered his personal search to the accused before conducting search upon him. Principles of natural justice demanded that accused should have been offered search by recovery witness who allegedly recovered case property from him and should have reduced this fact into writing which has not been done in present case and which diminishes credibility of prosecution version. Reliance being placed on a judgment of Orissa High Court reported as "Rabindernath Prusty Vs. State of Orissa 1984 CriLJ 1392. In this situation, it can be said that search of the accused by above said police official was in complete violation of the above said case law.
26. Moreover, as per the PWs, the knife which was allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused was sealed by PW-2 with the seal of "BL". However, the said seal was not handed over to any public person before or after use. No seal handing over memo was Page 10 of 12 prepared.
27. 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 be- ing tampered with cannot be ruled out."
28. It would mean that the seal was not handed over to any independent persons before/after use and was directly handed over to a police officer PW-1 who in fact was also the recovery witness of the present case.
29. 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.
30. 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 prosecution's case and the prosecution fails to prove all the links. In case where the prosecution has failed to prove all the links, the benefit of doubt has to be given to Page 11 of 12 the accused. As such the accused deserves acquittal in the present case.
31. 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 for the offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act. Thus, the accused Jitendra S/o is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act.
Digitally signed by
ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2026.05.02
18:15:56 +0530
Announced in the open court (ANIMESH KUMAR)
on 02.05.2026 JMFC-02,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 12 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.05.02 18:16:00 +0530 (ANIMESH KUMAR) JMFC-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi Page 12 of 12