Delhi District Court
State vs Nitin Kumar on 13 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL RANI,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-12, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
Cr. Case No. 1590/2021
FIR No. 1000/2020
P.S. KHYALA
State Vs. Nitin Kumar
U/s. 25/54/59 of Arms Act
STATE
VERSUS
NITIN KUMAR
S/o Sh. Kailash Nath
R/o A-19 & 226, Ambedkar Basti,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
Date of institution of case : 02.02.2021
Date of reserving the judgment : 14.07.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 13.08.2025
CNR No. : DLWT020019002021
Date of Commission of Offence : 03.12.2020
Name of the complainant : HC Jasbir Singh
Name of the accused : Nitin Kumar
Offence complained or proved : Section 25 Arms Act
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted sheetal
Digitally
signed by
sheetal rani
Date:
rani 2025.08.13
17:13:39
+0530
State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No.1000/2020 1 of 8
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS, COGNIZANCE AND CHARGE
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.12.2020 at about 06:30 PM near Chameli Park, Raghubir Nagar near Kuda Khatta, Khyala, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Khyala, accused Nitin Kumar was found in possession of one button actuated knife having total length of 23.1 cm in violation of notification dated 29.10.1980 issued under section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. Investigation was carried out and upon completion, the present charge-sheet alleging an offence punishable under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959 was filed against the accused. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned.
3. Upon appearance of accused, copy of charge sheet and annexed documents was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.")
4. Prima facie case was made out against the accused Nitin Kumar and charge for an offence punishable under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act,1959 was framed against him on 30.07.2022 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In order to substantiate the allegations, the prosecution examined two witnesses, i.e., PW-1 HC Jasbeer Singh and PW-2 HC Sanjeev who were on patrolling duty on 03.12.2020. PW1 HC Jasbeer Singh is the complainant and the 1st IO of the present case. 2nd IO HC Dharamveer Digitally signed sheetal by sheetal rani Date:
rani 2025.08.13
17:13:46 +0530
State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No.1000/2020 2 of 8
who filed the chargesheet could not be examined as he got expired. Case property was correctly identified by PW1 which is Ex. P1. Both the witnesses have deposed on similar lines as the case of prosecution. Further, all PWs were duly cross-examined by the Ld. LAC for the accused wherein both the witnesses have further supported the case of the prosecution.
6. Statement of accused in terms of Section 294 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein the accused admitted the genuineness of FIR i.e. Ex. P1, DD No. 1600 dated 03.12.2020 and DAD Notification dated 29.10.1980 i.e. Ex. P2 and Ex. P3 respectively.
7. In view of the above, witnesses mentioned at serial no. 2, 4, and 6 in the list of prosecution witnesses were dropped and since, no other witness was left to be examined, prosecution evidence was closed on 05.05.2025.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
8. Statement of accused person in terms of Section 313 Cr.PC. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused, to which the accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, the accused person did not opt to lead defence evidence and the matter was listed for final arguments.
FINAL AGRUMENTS
9. It has been argued by Ld. APP for the state that from the evidence on record, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused was found in possession of button actuated knife in Digitally signed by sheetal sheetal Date:
rani rani 2025.08.13 17:13:52 +0530 State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No.1000/2020 3 of 8 violation of Arms Act and has submitted that accused be convicted of the offence charged.
10. Per contra, it has been argued by Ld. LAC for the accused that accused is completely innocent and recovery of case property has been falsely implanted upon him. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that non joinder of public witness despite availability casts shadow of doubt on prosecution story. It is submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused be acquitted of the alleged offence.
DISCUSSION ON MERITS
11. The case record has been perused, arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as by Ld. LAC for the accused have been heard and the entire material available on record and evidence led on behalf of the prosecution has been gone through carefully.
12. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The case of the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Furthermore, the burden of proof in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. It is also a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to be acquitted.
Digitally signed by sheetal sheetal Date:
rani rani 2025.08.13 17:13:58 +0530 State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No.1000/2020 4 of 8
13. In order to prove the recovery of button actuated knife from accused, prosecution has relied upon seizure memo and testimony of the witnesses, who all are police witnesses.
14. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was apprehended and the button actuated knife was recovered from him at around 06:30 PM at a public place and despite that, no independent public person has been made a witness. This fact makes the manner of conducting of inquiry, seizure and search etc. on the spot along with the alleged recovery of the button actuated knife highly suspicious.
15. PW-2 have deposed in his cross examination that the IO had asked the public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. PW1 and PW2 have stated that no notice was served upon the public persons to join the investigation. Clearly, no sincere efforts were not made by the police officials to join the public persons even their name and particulars were not recorded. Non joining of public witnesses causes a dent in credibility of prosecution version. Failure on the part of the police officials to make sincere effort to join public witnesses for the proceedings when they were available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.
16. In the case of Anoop vs. State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held 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 Digitally signed sheetal by sheetal rani Date:
rani 2025.08.13
17:14:05
+0530
State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No.1000/2020 5 of 8
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".
17. In the case of Rabindernath Prusty v. State of Orissa Hon'ble Orissa High Court, it was held that "one of the formalities that have to be observed in searching a person is that the searching officer and other assisting him should give their search to the accused before searching the person of the accused." However, in the present case at no point of time PW1 or PW2 have offer their own personal search to any independent witness prior to conducting the personal search of accused. In addition to that, no efforts have been made to collect scientific evidence such as fingerprints from the knife in question, which could be crucial for the case of the prosecution.
18. No seal handing over memo or returning of seal has been proved on record. No DD entry with MHC(M) regarding deposition of seal in the malkhana has been produced or proved. Further it is stated by all the witnesses that the sketch memo and other documents were prepared before registration of the FIR. Perusal of the sketch memo reveals that complete particulars of the present case FIR appear on the documents and it is not the case of the prosecution that the same were put after the registration of FIR. This makes the case of recovery being a planted one more probable and causes serious dent to the case of the prosecution.
Digitally signedsheetal by sheetal rani Date:
rani 2025.08.13
17:14:11
+0530
State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No.1000/2020 6 of 8
19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L Goswami v State of M.P (1972 Cri.L.J.511SC) opined that:-
"...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 could 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..."
20. Accordingly, the fact of recovery of the alleged case property from the possession of accused person remains clouded which cast a doubt upon the case of the prosecution and prosecution has not been able to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION
21. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, evidence placed on record and legal position, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to discharge the burden cast upon it beyond reasonable doubt and there are sufficient doubts regarding recovery of Digitally signed sheetal by sheetal rani Date:
rani 2025.08.13
17:14:17
+0530
State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No.1000/2020 7 of 8
alleged case property from accused. Therefore, benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused and accused Nitin Kumar S/o Kailash is hereby acquitted for alleged commission of offence under Section 25 Arms Act.
This judgement contains 08 pages and all pages have been digitally signed by undersigned.
Digitally signedsheetal by sheetal rani Date:
rani 2025.08.13
17:14:24 +0530
Pronounced in the open (SHEETAL RANI)
Court on 13.08.2025 JMFC-12 (West), Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No.1000/2020 8 of 8