Delhi District Court
State vs Dinesh on 25 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARIDAMAN SINGH CHEEMA, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, DELHI
DLSE020288432022
FIR No. : 305/2022
PS : Sarita Vihar
U/s : 25/54/59 Arms Act
STATE VS. DINESH
JUDGMENT
1. Case Identification Number 7087/2022
2. Name of the Complainant ASI Subhash, No. 115/SE, PIS NO. 28911798, PS Sarita Vihar
3. Name of the accused, Dinesh S/o Sh. Prabhu parentage and address Dayal
4. Offence complained of 25/54/59 Arms Act
5. Date of commission of 01.06.2022 offence
6. Date of Institution 30.07.2022
7. Offence Charged 25/54/59 Arms Act
8. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
9. Order Reserved on 05.08.2025
10. Date of Pronouncement 25.08.2025
11. Final Order Acquitted Aridaman singh cheema Digitally signed FIR No. 305/2022 State vs. Dinesh Page 1 of 14 by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.08.25 15:48:45 +0530 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The case against the accused is that on 01.06.2022 at about 10:40PM at Railway line near Footover Bridge, Okhla Tank, New Delhi, the accused was found in possession of a buttondar knife without any license or permit in contravention of DAD Notification of GNCT of Delhi.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act. Copies were supplied to the accused and on the basis of record, the accused was charged for commission of offence punishable U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, the prosecution has examined witnesses:
3a) PW-1 ASI Subhash, deposed that on 01.06.2022, he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as ASI. On that day, he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Rajiv. At about 10.40 PM, when they were present near Okhla Tank, footover bridge, one secret informer came to them and told them that one person involved in snatching was standing near railway line, Okhla Tank and if Aridaman singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman FIR No. 305/2022 State vs. Dinesh Page 2 of 14 singh cheema Date: 2025.08.25 15:48:50 +0530 raid was conducted, he could be apprehended. Thereafter, they immediately reached the aforesaid spot and they saw one person wearing blue t-shirt and blue jeans present at the spot and secret informer pointed out towards him and told he is the same person with regard to whom he had given secret information.
Thereafter, he revealed the secret informer. Thereafter, they apprehended him. Thereafter, he interrogated him and he revealed his name as Dinesh. Thereafter, he conducted his cursory search and one buttondar knife was recovered from his right side pant pocket. Thereafter, he prepared sketch of the case property which is Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, he kept the case property in a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of SC. Thereafter, he handed over the seal to Ct. Rajiv vide seal handing over memo Ex. PW1/D. Thereafter, he seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, he prepared rukka which is Ex. PW1/C and handed over the same to Ct. Rajiv for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he went to the PS, got the FIR registered and came back to the spot alongwith 2nd IO/HC Abhay. There he handed over accused, case property and the documents to 2nd IO. Further proceedings were conducted by 2nd IO and he was relieved. Accused was present in the court and correctly identified by the witness.
In his cross-examination he stated that IO had requested 3/4 public persons to join the investigation. However, nobody agreed. IO did not serve any notice to them on their refusal. No photography or videography was conducted by him. He was unable to recall what kind of clothes were worn by the accused Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 305/2022 State vs. Dinesh Page 3 of 14 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.08.25 15:48:53 +0530 persons on the same day. He denied the suggestion that all the written documents were prepared at the PS and that is the reason why no public persons were made witnesses to the same. He denied the suggestion that the accused was apprehended from his house and case property was planted upon him. IO did not request any public persons in the nearby vicinity to join the investigation. He admitted that the place of the incident is near to a residential area.
3b) PW-2 HC Rajeev Yadav, deposed that on 01.06.2022, he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as constable. On that day, he was on patrolling duty alongwith ASI Subhash. At about 10.40 PM, when they were present near Okhla Tank, footover bridge, one secret informer came to us and told us that one person involved in snatching was standing near railway line, Okhla Tank and if raid was conducted, he could be apprehended. Thereafter, they immediately reached the aforesaid spot and they saw one person wearing blue t-shirt and blue jeans present at the spot and secret informer pointed out towards him and told he is the same person with regard to whom he had given secret information. Thereafter, ASI Subhash releaved the secret informer. Thereafter, they apprehended him. Thereafter, ASI Subhash interrogated him and he revealed his name as Dinesh. Thereafter, ASI Subhash conducted his cursory search and one buttondar knife was recovered from his right side pant pocket. Thereafter, ASI Subhash prepared sketch of the case property which is already Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, ASI Subhash kept the Aridaman singh FIR No. 305/2022 State vs. Dinesh Page 4 of 14 cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.08.25 15:48:57 +0530 case property in a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of SC. Thereafter, ASI Subhash handed over the seal to him vide seal handing over memo Ex. PW1/D. Thereafter, ASI Subhash seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, ASI Subhash prepared rukka which is Ex. PW1/C and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he went to the police station, got the FIR registered and returned to the spot alongwith 2nd IO/HC Abhay. There ASI Subhash handed over accused, case property and the documents to 2nd IO. Further proceedings were conducted by 2nd IO. Thereafter, second IO prepared site plan which is Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, accused was arrested by the second IO vide memo which is Ex.PW2/B and personal searched vide memo Ex.PW2/C. Second IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW2/D. Thereafter, medical examination was got recorded. His statement was recorded by the IO. Accused was present in the court and correctly identified by the witness. MHCM produced a white color pulanda sealed with the seal of SC. Seal is broken with the permission of the court. A buttondar knife was taken out and shown to the witness. Witness correctly identified the same.
In his cross-examination he stated that he was unable to recall what kind of clothes were worn by the accused persons on the same day. IO had requested 3/4 public persons to join the investigation. However, nobody agreed. IO did not serve any notice to them on their refusal. He denied the suggestion that the accused was apprehended from his house and case property Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 305/2022 State vs. Dinesh Page 5 of 14 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.08.25 15:49:03 +0530 was planted upon him. He denied the suggestion that all the written documents were prepared at the PS and that is the reason why no public persons were made witnesses to the same. IO did not conduct any investigation to ascertain the source of the weapon seized from the accused. He does not remember the DD entry with regard to his departure and arrival at the PS. IO did not request any public persons in the nearby vicinity to join the investigation. He admitted that that the place of the incident is near to a residential area.
3c) PW-3 HC Abhay Bhati, deposed that on 01.06.2022, he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as HC. On that day, he received an information from Duty Officer pertaining to the present case. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Rajeev went to the place of incident i.e. Okhla tank near Railway Line. When he reached at the spot, he met with ASI Subhash alongwith accused and case property. He handed over him the custody of accused and case property. Thereafter, he prepared site plan which is already Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, accused was arrested by him vide memo already Ex.PW2/B and personal searched vide memo Ex.PW2/C. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused vide already Ex.PW2/D. Thereafter, medical examination was got recorded. Thereafter, case property was deposited into malkhana. During the investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC. After the completion of investigation, he submitted the chargesheet before the Hon'ble Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 305/2022 State vs. Dinesh Page 6 of 14 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.08.25 15:49:07 +0530 Court. Accused was present in the court and correctly identified by the witness.
In his cross-examination he stated that no photography or videography was conducted by him. He was unable to recall what kind of clothes were worn by the accused persons on the same day. He denied the suggestion that all the written documents were prepared at the PS and that is the reason why no public persons were made witnesses to the same. He did not conduct any investigation to ascertain the source of the weapon seized from the accused. He does not remember the DD entry with regard to his departure and arrival at the PS. He had requested 3/4 public persons to join the investigation. However, nobody agreed. He did not serve any notice to them on their refusal. He denied the suggestion that the accused was apprehended from his house and case property was planted upon him. He did not request any public persons in the nearby vicinity to join the investigation. He admitted that the place of the incident is near to a residential area.
4. The accused had admitted copy of FIR no. 305/2022 PS Sarita Vihar (Ex.A1), certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.A2), DAD notification (Ex.A3), DD No. 124A dt. 01.06.2022 (Ex.A4) u/s 294 Cr.PC. Accordingly, corresponding witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses.
Aridaman singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 305/2022 State vs. Dinesh Page 7 of 14 Date:
2025.08.25 15:49:12 +0530
5. Matter was listed for statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
Statement of accused u/s 313 C.P.C. had been recorded in which accused had simply denied all the evidence put to him and has stated that it is a false case and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The witnesses have deposed falsely against him. Accused chose to lead evidence in defence.
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
6. Ld. APP for the State has stated that the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the accused was found in the conscious possession of the buttondar knife and the same was already produced before the court during the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Ld. Counsel for the accused has stated that there are no public witnesses to the recovery and the sketch memo and the seizure memo bears the FIR number whereas as per the testimony of PW-1, the sketch of case property (Ex.PW1/A) and seizure memo (Ex.PW1/B) were prepared before the registration of FIR. Heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and perused the judicial record carefully.
7. The Accused has been charged for the offence under section 25 Arms Act. For offence under section 25 Arms Act, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz.,
i) That the Accused has in his possession or carries at any place;
Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 305/2022 State vs. Dinesh Page 8 of 14 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.08.25 15:49:16 +0530
ii) an arm of the description specified in the notification u/s 4 of the Arms Act;
iii) such possession is without any license/permit;
and
iv) such possession is conscious.
8. In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi V/s State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
''18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC''.
In Roop Chand V/s The State of Haryana,1999 (1) C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:-
"It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 305/2022 State vs. Dinesh Page 9 of 14 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date:
2025.08.25 15:49:21 +0530 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'' It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ramesh Prakash Vs. State 1999 VI AD (DELHI) 536 that, "the number of the FIR (Ex PW-3/B) 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 received any Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 305/2022 State vs. Dinesh Page 10 of 14 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.08.25 15:49:26 +0530 explanation whatsoever as to under what circumstances number of the FIR (Ex. PW-3/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW-3/B) was registered prior to the receipt of the secret information and alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the FIR was inserted in these document after its registration. In both the situations, is seriously reflect upon the veracity of the prosecution version given by Vijay (PW-5), Inspector O.P. Sharma (PW-6), SI Sehdev (PW-7) and SI Brijdender (PW-8) and creates a good deal of doubt about- recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Thus the benefit arising out of such a situation must necessarily go to the appellant".
9. In the judgment titled as Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v.
State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
".......Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be' proved and `will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 305/2022 State vs. Dinesh Page 11 of 14 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.08.25 15:49:30 +0530 must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an Accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the Accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense."
10. It is observed that it is clear from the record that public persons were available at the spot and police officials have not made sincere efforts to make them as witness in this case. It is apparent from the testimony of police official PW-1 ASI Subhash, who admitted in his cross-examination that public persons were also gathered at the spot. There is nothing on record if any, written notice was given to them. Further, it has come on record through the prosecution evidence that the IO has done the writing work at the spot. When the IO has done the writing work at the spot itself which must have taken them some time, they ought to have made some sincere efforts in Aridaman FIR No. 305/2022 State vs. Dinesh Page 12 of 14 singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.08.25 15:49:35 +0530 joining the passers-by as witnesses to the investigation which admittedly is not so in the present case. Thus, the parrot like narration of the facts by the prosecution witnesses cannot alone be said to be sufficient to arrive at the conclusion of guilt of accused. A grave doubt is also raised on the veracity of the testimony of prosecution witnesses on account of the apparent discrepancy in the documents as the FIR no. must have come to the knowledge of ASI Subhash only after Ct. Rajiv came back with the FIR but the same is mentioned on the sketch (Ex.PW1/A) and seizure memo (Ex.PW1/B) which were prepared before the registration of FIR as per the examination- in-chief of PW-1. The same leads to inference that either the said documents were prepared later or that the FIR had been registered earlier in point of time. In both the aforesaid cases a dent is created and unexplained holes are left in the prosecution story, the benefit of which must accrue to the accused.
11. It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
12. Thus, in view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the benefit of doubt ought to be granted Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 305/2022 State vs. Dinesh Page 13 of 14 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date:
2025.08.25 15:49:39 +0530 to the accused, who is entitled to be exonerated of the charges against the accused in the present case. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the accused Dinesh S/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal is acquitted for the offences under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
Decided on 25.08.2025 Aridaman by Digitally signed Aridaman singh cheema singh Announced in open court. cheema Date: 2025.08.25 15:49:43 +0530 (Aridaman Singh Cheema)
JMFC-05/SED/Saket Courts/ 25.08.2025 This judgment contains 14 pages and all pages bears my digital signatures. Digitally signed Aridaman by Aridamansingh cheema singh Date:
cheema 2025.08.25
15:49:48 +0530
(Aridaman Singh Cheema)
JMFC-05/SED/Saket Courts/ 25.08.2025 FIR No. 305/2022 State vs. Dinesh Page 14 of 14