Delhi District Court
State vs Karan on 31 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT KARAN SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT02-030574-2022
CIS No. 14376/22
State Vs. Karan
FIR No. 862/2022
PS. Paschim Vihar West
U/s. 25 of Arms Act
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 11.10.2022
2) The name of the complainant : HC Narender
3) The name & parentage of accused : Karan S/o Jeet Lal,
R/o T-1078, Mangolpuri, Delhi
4) Offence complained of : U/s. 25 of Arms Act
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 31.07.2025
8) Ld. LADC for accused : Ms. Reena Yadav and Ms. Twinkle
Parmar
Date of Institution : 09.12.2022
Judgment reserved on : 31.07.2025
Judgment announced on : 31.07.2025
FIR no. 862/22 State vs Karan Page no.1
JUDGMENT
1) The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 11.10.2022 at about
00.45 hours near Metro Pillar, Flyover towards Mangolpuri, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS PV West, accused was found in possession of one Desi Katta (countrymade pistol) in his right pocket as described in seizure memo Mark 'X' and thereby accused was charged with an offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act.
2) After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused under Section 25 Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In support of its version, prosecution has examined four witnesses. Accused admitted FIR no. 862/2022 is Ex. A1, Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. A2, GD no. 9A is Ex. A3, FSL result is Ex. A4 and Sanction U/s 39 of Arms Act is Ex. A5. Statement of accused recorded U/s 313 CrPC to which he chosen not to lead defence evidence. Final arguments heard.
4) I have heard Ld. APP for State and counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
5) The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are hereby discussed, in brief, as follows:-
5.1) PW-1 Ct. Narender deposed that on 11.10.2022, PW1 was posted at PS Ranhola as a Contable. It is further stated by PW1 that on that day PW1 was posted at office of ACP Sub divional Paschim Vihar. It is further stated by PW1 that at around 12:45 PM PW1 was patrolling alongwith Driver/HC Balwan in the govt vehicle beaing number DL1CAV 9321 in the area of Peera Garhi Chowk, when they reached near the U-turn, of the peeragarhi chowk, three persons came to them and informed that a persons is having a arms weapons and it seems like a gun. It is further stated by PW1 that thereafter, they chased the accused on foot and some FIR no. 862/22 State vs Karan Page no.2 how manage to apprehandd him at the flyover of Peera Grahi to Mangol Puri, Delhi. It is further stated by PW1 that thereafter, PW1 inquired from the accused about his name and identitfy and no satifactory answer were given by the accused. It is further stated by PW1 that thereafter, PW1 made the cursory search of the accused, PW1 found one desi katta from his right pocket and his name was reveal as Karan. It is further stated by PW1 that PW1 informed the Duty officer and after sometime IO/HC Narender. It is further stated by PW1 that PW1 handed over the custody of accused and desi katta to the IO. It is further stated by PW1 that thereafter, IO prepared the scketch memo which is now exhibited as Ex PW-1/A. It is further stated by PW1 that IO seized the Desi Katta vide memo exhibited as Ex PW-1/B. It is further stated by PW1 that IO kept the Desi Katta on a white cloth and sealed it with the seal of NK. It is further stated by PW1 that the length and breadth of the case properties are the same as mentioned in the sketch memo already exhibited as Ex PW-1/A. It is further stated by PW1 that IO recorded his statement which is now Ex PW-1/C and he prepared the tehrir which was handed over to Ct. Yogesh for getting the FIR registered and after sometime Ct. Yogesh came back to the spot with copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO. It is further stated by PW1 that IO prepared the site plan at his instance which is now Ex. PW-1/D. It is further stated by PW1 that IO arrest the accused vide arrest memo which is now Ex. PW-1/E. It is further stated by PW1 that IO prepared the personal search memo which is now Ex. PW-1/F. It is further stated by PW1 that IO recorded the discloure of the accused which is now Ex. PW-1/G. It is further stated by PW1 that thereafter, IO recorded his statment and PW1 was releaved from the present matter.
5.2) PW-2 HC Balwan Singh deposed that on 11.10.2022, PW2 was posted at Sub division Paschim Vihar West as a driver and was deputed on Govt. Vehicle i.e. Eartiga bearing number DL1CAV 9321. It is further stated by PW2 that on that day, PW2 had gone to taking petrol from Pitam Pura, Police line and coming to PS Paschim Vihar East. At around 12:45 PM, they reached, when they reached near the U-turn, of the peeragarhi chowk, three persons came to them and informed that a persons is having a arms weapons and it seems like a gun. It is further stated by PW2 that thereafter, they chased the accused on foot and some how manage to apprehand him at the flyover of Peera Grahi to Mangol Puri, Delhi. It is further stated by PW2 FIR no. 862/22 State vs Karan Page no.3 that thereafter, they inquired from the accused about his name and identitfy and no satifactory answer were given by the accused. It is further stated by PW2 that thereafter, PW2 alongwith Ct. Narender made the cursory search of the accused, they found one desi katta from his right pocket and his name was reveal as Karan. It is further stated by PW2 that Ct. Narender informed the Duty officer and after sometime IO/HC Narender with Ct. Yogesh came at the spot. It is further stated by PW2 that they handed over the custody of accusd and desi katta to the IO. It is further stated by PW2 that thereafter, they come to the PS. It is further stated by PW2 that again said, thereafter, IO prepared the scketch memo which is already exhibited as Ex PW-1/A. It is further stated by PW2 that IO seized the Desi Katta vide memo exhibited as already Ex PW-1/B and sealed with the seal of NK. It is further stated by PW2 that the length of barral was 13.5 CM and width of barral was 02 CM and totol length of katta was 26 CM. It is further stated by PW2 that IO recorded the statement of Ct. Narender and IO prepared the rukka handed over to which was handed over to Ct. Yogesh for getting the FIR registered and after sometime Ct. Yogesh came back to the spot with copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO. It is further stated by PW2 that IO prepared the site plan at instance of Ct. Narender which is already Ex. PW-1/D. It is further stated by PW2 that IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo which is already Ex. PW-1/E. It is further stated by PW2 that IO prepared the personal search memo which is already Ex. PW-1/F. It is further stated by PW2 that IO recorded the discloure of the accused which is already Ex. PW-1/G. It is further stated by PW2 that thereafter, IO recorded his statment and PW2 was releaved from the present matter. It is further stated by PW2 that the case property is already exhibited in the testimony of PW-1. 5.3) PW-3 Ct. Yogesh deposed that on 11.10.2022, PW3 was posted at PS Paschim Vihar West as a Contable. It is further stated by PW3 that on that day IO, received DD No. 9-A and PW3 along with IO, went to the spot and met HC Narender and HC Balwan there who produce the accused alongwith the Katta to IO. It is further stated by PW3 that thereafter, IO asked the public person to join investigation but the went away without giving satisfactory reasons. It is further stated by PW3 that IO, checked the said Katta and prepared the scketch memo which is now exhibited as Ex PW-1/A. It is further stated by PW3 that IO seized the Desi Katta vide memo exhibited as Ex PW-1/B. It is further stated by PW3 that IO kept the FIR no. 862/22 State vs Karan Page no.4 Desi Katta on a white cloth and sealed it with the seal of NK. It is further stated by PW3 that the length and breadth of the case properties are the same as mentioned in the sketch memo already exhibited as Ex PW-1/A. It is further stated by PW3 that IO recorded statement of Ct.
Narender and he prepared the tehrir which was handed over to PW3 for getting the FIR registered and after sometime PW3 came back to the spot with copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO. It is further stated by PW3 that IO prepared the site plan at his instance which is already Ex. PW-1/D. It is further stated by PW3 that IO arrest the accused vide arrest memo which is now Ex. PW-1/E. It is further stated by PW3 that IO prepared the personal search memo which is now Ex. PW-1/F. It is further stated by PW3 that IO recorded the discloure of the accused which is now Ex. PW-1/G. It is further stated by PW3 that thereafter, IO recorded his statment u/s 161 CrPC. It is further stated by PW3 that they took the accused to PS after his medical examination at SGM Hospital and case properties was submitted in Malkhana. It is further stated by PW3 that the said case property is already exhibited during the testimony of PW-1.
5.4) PW4 HC Narender deposed that on 11.10.2022, PW4 was posted at PS Paschim Vihar West as a Head Contable. It is further stated by PW4 that on that day PW4, received DD No. 9-A and PW4 along with Ct. went to the spot and met HC Narender and HC Balwan there who produce the accused alongwith the Katta to PW4. It is further stated by PW4 that thereafter, PW4 asked the public person to join investigation but the went away without giving satisfactory reasons. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 checked the said Katta and prepared the scketch memo which is already exhibited as Ex PW-1/A. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 seized the Desi Katta vide memo exhibited as already Ex PW-1/B. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 kept the Desi Katta on a white cloth and sealed it with the seal of NK. It is further stated by PW4 that the length and breadth of the case properties are the same as mentioned in the sketch memo already exhibited as already Ex PW-1/A. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 recorded statement of Ct. Narender and he prepared the tehrir which was handed over to Ct. Yogesh for getting the FIR registered and after sometime he came back to the spot with copy of FIR and original tehrir to the PW4. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 prepared the site plan at his instance which is already Ex. PW-1/D. It is further stated by PW4 FIR no. 862/22 State vs Karan Page no.5 that PW4 arrest the accused vide arrest memo which is already Ex. PW-1/E. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 prepared the personal search memo which is already Ex. PW-1/F. It is further stated by PW4 that PW4 recorded the discloure of the accused which is already Ex. PW-1/G. It is further stated by PW4 that thereafter, PW4 recorded the statment u/s 161 CrPC. It is further stated by PW4 that they took the accused to PS after his medical examination at SGM Hospital and case properties was submitted in Malkhana. It is further stated by PW4 that after the considering the fact and investigation, PW4 prepared the chargesheet and file the same before the court. It is further stated by PW4 that after receiving the result qua the seized weapon, PW4 had also file the supplementary chargesheet in the present matter.
6) It is the cardinal principle of Criminal Justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused person beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused is but, the golden rule of the Criminal Jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own leg.
7) Ld. Counsel for the accused vehemently argued that countrymade pistol was planted upon him. It is further submitted that this got fortified with the fact that there is no public witness in the present case despite the fact that the accused was apprehended from the public place. Considering this argument of Ld. counsel it is necessary to go through the legal aspect on this poser. In State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 FIR no. 862/22 State vs Karan Page no.6 opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions. [Emphasis supplied]
8) Considering facts and circumstances of the present case, there was no lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Merely mentioning that public persons were requested to join the investigation is of no avail. Name of those persons are not mentioned. It is not mentioned as to what action was taken against those persons who refused to join the investigation. Hence, the above-mentioned creates doubt on the case of the prosecution and give teeth to the defence of the accused that he was picked from his home.
9) Further, the seal after use was not handed over to any independent person. It appears that no efforts was made to hand over the seal after use to independent person. I am conscious of precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State, 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, that:
"10. 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 Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court also held in Ramji Singh v. State of Haryana, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 452, that "7. The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property."
10) The case property was lying in the Maalkhana of the same police station, where the police official having the possession of seal was posted. There was ample opportunities for tampering with the case property. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
11) Further, it is also came on record that PW1 and his accompanying police official did
FIR no. 862/22 State vs Karan Page no.7
not offer their personal search prior to taking the search of accused. PW1 and his accompanying police official must have offered their personal search to some independent witness. No such precaution was taken by PW1 and his accompanying police official. The doubt as to the false plantation of the case property cannot be ruled out.
12)No efforts were made by any of the police officials to lift the chance finger prints from the countrymade pistol in question. Had any such efforts been made there would have been scientific evidence in the present case which could be crucial for the case of prosecution. No efforts were made to collect this scientific evidence by the IO.
13)In the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients 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 cases 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 ingredients 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 rests upon the prosecution..........................."
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, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII(2007) SLT 454(SC).
FIR no. 862/22 State vs Karan Page no.8
15)In view of above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I acquit the accused Karan of the charged offences in the present case. The case property be confiscated to the State. The same be destroyed. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance after compliance of u/s 437 A Cr. P. C. Digitally signed by ANKIT KARAN ANKIT KARAN SINGH Announced in the open court SINGH Date: 2025.07.31 15:41:42 +0530 on 31.07.2025 ANKIT KARAN SINGH JMIC-08/WEST, THC, DELHI 31.07.2025 FIR no. 862/22 State vs Karan Page no.9