Delhi District Court
State vs Sanju@Sudhir on 25 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL SAINI,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
DLSH020115192023
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.: 670/23
Police Station: Jyoti
Nagar
(Cr. Case No.6608/23)
b Date of the commission of : 07.10.2023
the offence
c Name of the Complainant : HC Ajeet Singh
d Name of Accused person : Sanju @ Sudhir
and his parentage and S/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar
residence R/o Gali No.1, Pusta
Chowki, Behind Jyoti Public
School, Infront of Nishant
Colony, Loni (Gzb), UP.
e Offence complained of : U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
f Plea of the Accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted
h Order reserved on : 25.03.2025
i Order pronounced on : 25.03.2025
Brief statement of facts of the case and trial proceedings:
1.The case of the Prosecution against the Accused Sanju @ Sudhir is that on 07.10.2023 at about 05:00 pm at service road near Jal Board, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar, he was found in possession of one buttondar knife in contravention Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
State vs. Sanju @ Sudhir 2025.03.25 16:24:02 +0530 FIR No.670/23 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 1 of 13 of notification issued by Delhi Administration. On the said allegations, Accused was booked 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 21.10.2023 whereupon Cognizance was taken in this matter and on the same day, the copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the Accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Further, on 04.01.2024, charge was framed against the Accused under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Subsequently, Prosecution evidence was led and in order to prove its version, Prosecution examined three witnesses i.e., PW1 HC Ajeet, PW2 Ct. Anish Mavi and PW3 HC Kapil Kasana. The remaining witnesses i.e., DO/ASI Garjan Prasad and the concerned dealing clerk of DCP Office were dropped from list of witnesses on account of statement of the Accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C dated 15.04.2024 wherein he admitted the registration of FIR and certificate u/s 65B IEA (Ex. A1 colly) and DAD notification (Ex. A2).
4. After the conclusion of the Prosecution evidence, statement of Accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 06.03.2025 separately wherein Accused claimed to be innocent 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. LAC for the Accused as well Ld. Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL SAINI State vs. Sanju @ Sudhir SAINI Date:
2025.03.25 16:24:09 +0530 FIR No.670/23 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 2 of 13 APP for the State.
Appreciation of Evidence
5. The arguments were addressed by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. LAC 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.
Vehemently, denying the arguments of Ld. APP for the State, Ld. LAC 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. LAC 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. LAC for the Accused strongly argued for acquittal of the Accused in this matter.
Submissions have been duly heard. Record has been carefully perused.
6. A detailed scrutiny of the testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses has been done and is hereby discussed in detail.
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL Date:
SAINI SAINI 2025.03.25 16:24:16 +0530 State vs. Sanju @ Sudhir FIR No.670/23 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 3 of 13 6.1. PW1 HC Ajeet: He is the complainant in the present case.
He deposed that on 07.10.2023, he along with Ct.Anish Mavi were in patrolling duty in the jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar and at about 5.00 am, they were present at Service near Jal Board Road, Delhi and saw one boy was coming on foot from the side of Fly over and was going towards Loni Gol Chakkar via Service Road, Fire Brigade. He further deposed that after seeing them in police uniform, he turned back and going towards Fly over and moved fastly and he with the help of Ct.Anish Mavi apprehended said person after taking some distance. He further deposed that they asked him why you turned back, but he did not give any satisfactory answer and thereafter, he took cursory search of the said accused and recovered one buttondar knife from the right side pocket of his pant. He further deposed that they came to know the name of the said person as Sanju @Sudhir and he gave information to the PS. He further deposed that after sometime, IO/HC Kapil Kasana arrived at the spot and they handed over the said person and the case property to IO. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that IO requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none were agreed and went away without telling their names and addresses and he did not serve notice to them. He further deposed that IO put buttondar knife on a white blank paper and prepared its sketch memo Ex. PW1/B and measurement of the said knife i.e. total length of the knife was 23.05 cm, length of the blade was 11 cm, length of the handle was 12.05 cm, and the width of the said knife was 2.08 cm. He further deposed that thereafter, IO Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.03.25 16:24:25 State vs. Sanju @ Sudhir +0530 FIR No.670/23 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 4 of 13 prepared pullanda of the said knife and sealed it with the seal of RP and IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. He further deposed that seal was handed over to him after use. He further deposed that IO prepared rukka and same was handed over to him for registration of the FIR and accordingly, he went to PS and got registered the present FIR and came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and same was handed over to the IO. IO prepared site plan at his instance Ex. PW1/D. He further deposed that IO arrested accused vide arrest memo and personal search memos Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F. He further deposed that IO recorded disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW1/G. He further deposed that IO gave information regarding arrest of accused to his family members and thereafter, they along with accused and case property went to PS and case property was deposited with the malkhana and accused was sent to lock up and IO recorded his statement.He also correctly identified the accused as well as case property (Ex.P1) in the court.
In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not make any departure entry before leaving PS and left the PS at about 8.00 pm and reached at the spot at about 5.00 am. He admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and no written notice was served upon any public persons who reused to join. He also admitted that seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of FIR and nothing was changed after registration of FIR. He failed to Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.03.25 State vs. Sanju @ Sudhir 16:24:42 FIR No.670/23 +0530 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 5 of 13 remember the colour of clothes of the accused which he was wearing at the time of incident. He denied the suggestion that Accused has been falsely implicated in the present case or that case property has been planted upon him or that all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS. 6.2. PW2 Ct. Manoj: He was present alongwith HC Ajeet during the patrolling duty at the time of the alleged incident and has deposed exactly on the lines of PW1. He also correctly identified the accused as well as case property (Ex.P1) in the court.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of recovery as well as arrest proceeding no public witness was joined. Further, he admitted that the spot of the incident is a public place and no notice was served on the public persons who refused to join investigation. He also admitted that seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of FIR and nothing was changed after registration of FIR. He failed to remember the colour of clothes of the accused which he was wearing at the time of incident. He denied the suggestion that Accused has been falsely implicated in the present case or that case property has been planted upon him or that all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS. 6.3. HC Kapil Kasana: He is the IO in the present case. He deposed that on 07.10.2023, upon receiving of DD No. 09A regarding recovery of buttondar knife Ex. PW3/A, he went to the spot ie. Service road, Nala Road, Loni Gol Chakkar near Fire Brigade house where he met HC Ajeeet and Ct. Anish Mavi and Digitally State vs. Sanju @ Sudhir signed by FIR No.670/23 RAHUL RAHUL SAINI Date:
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act SAINI 2025.03.25 16:24:49 +0530 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 6 of 13 they handed over the said person and the case property to him. He deposed that he recorded the statement of HC Ajeet Ex. PW1/A. He further stated that he requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none were agreed and went away without telling their names and addresses and he did not serve notice to them. He further stated that he put buttondar knife on a white blank paper and prepared its sketch memo Ex. PW1/B and measurement of the said knife i.e. total length of the knife was 23.05 cm, length of the blade was 11 cm, length of the handle was 12.05 cm, and the width of the said knife was 2.08 cm. He further stated that thereafter, he prepared pullanda of the said knife and sealed it with the seal of RP and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. He further stated that seal was handed over to HC Ajeet after use and he prepared rukka Ex. PW3/B and same was handed over to HC Ajeet for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to PS and got registered the present FIR and came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and same was handed over to the him. He further stated that he prepared site plan at the instance of HC Ajeet Ex.
PW1/D. He further stated that he arrested accused vide arrest memo and personal search memos already Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F. He further stated that he recorded disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW1/G. He further stated that he gave information regarding arrest of accused to his family members and thereafter, they along with accused and case property went to PS and case property was deposited with the malkhana and accused was sent to lock up.
In his cross-examination, he stated that spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and no Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL SAINI State vs. Sanju @ Sudhir SAINI Date:
2025.03.25 FIR No.670/23 16:24:55 +0530 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 7 of 13 written notice was served upon any public persons who reused to join. He also admitted that seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of FIR and nothing was changed after registration of FIR. He further stated that no videography or photography was conducted at the time of recovery. He failed to remember the colour of clothes of the accused which he was wearing at the time of incident. He denied the suggestion that Accused has been falsely implicated in the present case or that case property has been planted upon him or that all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS.
7. 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.
8. 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 :
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.03.25 16:25:03 +0530 State vs. Sanju @ Sudhir FIR No.670/23 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 8 of 13 "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]"
9. 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.
The above stated observation of this court is fortified by Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs. Sanju @ Sudhir Date:
SAINI 2025.03.25 16:25:10 FIR No.670/23 +0530 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 9 of 13 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 Haryana [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. 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..."
10. Moving further, this Court is conscious of precedent laid Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs. Sanju @ Sudhir Date:
SAINI 2025.03.25 FIR No.670/23 16:25:18 +0530 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 10 of 13 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.
11. 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 knife Ex. PW1/B and seizure memo of the knife Ex. PW1/C bear the number of FIR. As per the rukka and testimony of witnesses, the sketch memo of the knife 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 Digitally signed by RAHUL State vs. Sanju @ Sudhir RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
FIR No.670/23 2025.03.25
16:25:25
+0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 11 of 13
manner alleged by the Prosecution. That 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."
12. 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 Digitally signed by RAHUL State vs. Sanju @ Sudhir RAHUL SAINI FIR No.670/23 SAINI Date:
2025.03.25 16:25:31 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act +0530 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 12 of 13 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.
Conclusion
13. 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.
14. In view of above said discussion, the Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Accused Sanju @ Sudhir S/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar is acquitted of the charges u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act framed in the present case. Case property be confiscated to the State. Same be destroyed.
File be consigned to Record Room subject to compliance of section 437-A Cr.PC. Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
Announced in the open court 2025.03.25 16:25:37 +0530 on 25.03.2025 (Rahul Saini) Judicial Magistrate First Class-08(Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 25.03.2025 [This judgment contains 13 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.] State vs. Sanju @ Sudhir FIR No.670/23 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 13 of 13