Delhi District Court
State vs Chand Mohammad on 24 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRAGATI,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KKD COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Chand Mohd.
FIR No.: 276/2019
PS: Anand Vihar
JUDGMENT
A Case Identification 5092/2022
Number
B Name of the HC Rajeev Kumar.
Complainant
C Name of the accused & Chand Mohammad
his parentage and S/o Sh. Budhava
address R/o C-322, Balmiki Gali, Saheed Nagar,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.
D Date of commission of 26.07.2019
the offences
E Date of Institution of the 11.07.2022
case
F Offences charged Offences u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act and u/s
39/192 MV Act.
G Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
H Order Reserved on 24.09.2025
I Date of Pronouncement 24.09.2025
of judgment
J Final Order Acquittal
K State represented by APP for the State.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Present accused person namely Chand Mohammad is produced before the court to stand trial for the offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
FIR No. 276/2019 State Vs. Chand Mohd. Page No. 1/11Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.24 18:09:40 +0530
2. In brief, the facts of the case as per the prosecution are that on 26.07.2019, HC Rajeev, along with Ct. Prince and Ct. Mohit under the supervision of SI Monu Chouhan, was on patrolling duty. At about 5:45 PM, when they were going from Park Plaza Hotel towards metro mall then in front of the Majhar they noticed a suspicious youth riding a Splendor motorcycle without a number plate coming from Metro Mall side. When signaled to stop, he attempted to flee but was apprehended by HC Rajeev and the other police staff. On cursory search, one country-made pistol containing a live cartridge was recovered from the possession fo that person, who disclosed his identity as Chand Mohammad. The weapon and ammunition were sealed and seized as per procedure. That a written complaint was given in this regard by HC Rajeev. Accordingly an FIR was registered against accused Chand Mohd. Investigation was set into motion. Accused was arrested and was produced before the court to face trial.
3. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court, copy whereof was provided to accused as per the provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Thereafter, arguments on charge were heard and charge u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act and Sec. 39/192 M.V. Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, prosecution was asked to lead its evidence. To prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses. The role of each PW is discussed here in below:
FIR No. 276/2019 State Vs. Chand Mohd. Page No. 2/11Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.24 18:09:45 +0530 PW-1 : HC Rajeev deposed that on 26.07.2019, he was posted at Special Staff Shahdara as Head Constable. On receiving DD No. 11, he along with SI Manu Chauhan, Ct. Mohit and Ct. Prince with IO kit had gone for patrolling duty in the area of PS Anand Vihar. At about 05:45 pm, when they reached near Majhar from Park Hotel to Metro Mall, a suspicious boy was seen coming from Metro Mall on a black Splendor motorcycle without a number plate. When he was stopped, the boy attempted to run away with the motorcycle, but he was apprehended along with the motorcycle. On conducting a search of the said boy, one country made pistol was recovered from the right side pocket of his jeans. On inquiry, he revealed his name as Chand Mohd. That he informed the senior officer about the incident through his mobile phone, upon which directions were given to take necessary action. He requested 4-5 persons to join the investigation, but none of them joined and they left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. Thereafter, the recovered country made pistol was checked with safety measures and one live cartridge was taken out from it. That a sketch plan Ex. PW1/A of the recovered country made pistol and live cartridge was prepared by him. The length of the country made pistol was found to be 26 cm, the length of the barrel 12.8 cm, the length of the body was 11.5 cm, and the length of the butt was 9 cm. Further, that the length of the cartridge was measured as 7.4 cm, and the width 1.5 cm. Thereafter, the case property i.e., country made pistol and live cartridge were kept in a transparent plastic box, tied with doctor tape, and sealed with the seal of RK. After use, the seal was handed over to Ct. Mohit. That he seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and the motorcycle vide memo Ex. PW1/C. That a tehrir (Ex. PW1/D) was prepared by him and was handed over to Ct. Mohit, who was sent to the police station for registration of FIR. After some time, Ct.FIR No. 276/2019 State Vs. Chand Mohd. Page No. 3/11 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date:
PRAGATI 2025.09.24 18:09:49 +0530 Mohit along with HC Sandeep arrived at the spot at 08:15 pm. The case property and accused were handed over by him to HC Sandeep along with the seizure memo. That a site plan (Ex. PW1/E) was prepared by HC Sandeep at his instance and his statement was recorded. He identified the accused and the case property (Ex. P1) present before the court. PW-2 : HC Prince deposed that on 26.07.2019, he was posted at Special Staff Shahdara as Constable. He further deposed on lines of PW1 and the same is not being reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. He further proved the arrest memo Ex. PW2/A vide which accused was arrested, personal search memo (Ex. PW2/B) vide which personal search of the accused was conducted and disclosure statement Ex. PW2/C of accused recorded by the IO in his presence. He further identified the accused present before the court.
PW-3 : HC Mohit Kumar deposed that on 26.07.2019, he was posted at Special Staff Shahdara as constable. He further deposed on the lines of PW2 and the same is not being reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. The accused was present in court and correctly identified by the witness. He further stated that on 17.09.2019, he had taken the case property to FSL, Rohini and deposited the same there. Further, he identified the accused who was present before the court.
PW-4 : ASI Sandeep Kumar deposed that on 26.07.2019, he was posted at Special Staff Shahdara as Head Constable. On that day, the present case file was marked to him for investigation. During the course of investigation, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/B at the instance of HC Rajeev. He arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW2/A. That the personal search of the accused was carried out by him vide memo Ex. PW2/B. The disclosure statement Ex. PW2/C of accused was recorded by him. He further stated that he had got the case property deposited in the FSL FIR No. 276/2019 State Vs. Chand Mohd. Page No. 4/11 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date: PRAGATI 2025.09.24 18:09:52 +0530 through Ct. Mohit. He further identified the accused present before the court.
PW-5: SI Monu Chauhan deposed that on 26.07.2019, he was posted at Special Staff Shahdara as a Constable. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 11, he along with HC Rajeev, Ct. Mohit, and Ct. Prince with IO kit had gone for patrolling duty in the area of PS Anand Vihar. At about 05:45 pm, when they reached near Majhar, from Park Hotel to Metro Mall, one suspicious boy was seen coming from Metro Mall on a black Splendor motorcycle without a number plate. When the police staff stopped him, he started running with his motorcycle. The said boy was apprehended along with his motorcycle. HC Rajeev conducted the search of the boy and recovered one desi katta from the right-side pocket of his jeans. The boy revealed his name as Chand Mohammad. HC Rajeev informed the senior officer about the incident through his mobile phone, who directed him to take necessary action. HC Rajeev requested 4-5 persons to join the investigation, but none agreed and they left the spot without revealing their names and addresses. No notice could be served upon them. Thereafter, HC Rajeev checked the recovered the country made pistol with safety measures and one live cartridge was taken out from it. HC Rajeev then prepared a sketch plan of the recovered case property. The length of the country made pistol was 26 cm, the length of the barrel was 12.8 cm, the length of the body was 11.5 cm, and the length of the butt was 9 cm. The length of the cartridge was 7.4 cm and the width was 1.5 cm. Thereafter, HC Rajeev kept the case property in a transparent plastic box, tied it with doctor tape, and sealed it with the seal of "RK." After use, the seal was handed over to Ct. Mohit. HC Rajeev prepared the seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. He also seized the motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex.
PW1/C. Thereafter, HC Rajeev prepared the tehrir Ex. PW1/D and handed FIR No. 276/2019 State Vs. Chand Mohd. Page No. 5/11 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.24 18:09:55 +0530 it over to Ct. Mohit, who was sent to the police station for registration of FIR. After some time, Ct. Mohit along with HC Sandeep arrived back at the spot at about 08:15 pm. That HC Rajeev handed over the case property and the accused to HC Sandeep along with the seizure memos. Thereafter HC Sandeep prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/E at the instance of HC Rajeev and recorded his statement as well. He identified the case property and accused present before the court. PW-6: HC Rajeev deposed that on 17.01.2022, he was posted at Special Staff, Shahdara, Delhi as Head Constable. That he had filed the chargesheet before the court and further, after obtaining the FSL result on 18.09.2023, he had filed the same before the court by way of supplementary challan.
6. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 294 Cr.PC on 17.09.2025 wherein he had admitted the genuineness the FIR no. 276/2019 along with certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act (Ex.A1- colly), FSL result (Ex. A2) and Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act (Ex. A3). Ac- cordingly, PW Prerna Lakra and PW SO/Addl. DCP-III/Shahdara Delhi were dropped from the list of witnesses.
7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, same was closed. There-
after statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein, he denied the allegations so leveled by prosecution against him and alleged that he was falsely implicated in this case. Further, the ac- cused did not wish to lead defence evidence whereafter the matter was listed for final arguments. During the course of final arguments, the ac- Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.24 18:10:04 +0530 FIR No. 276/2019 State Vs. Chand Mohd. Page No. 6/11 cused placed on record copy of a robkar issued to him by the court in re- spect of RC of his motorcycle and submitted that the said RC was lying in another court's record in another case wherein he had stood as a surety.
8. I have heard the final arguments led by Ld. APP for the State as well of Ld. Defence counsel and perused the case file carefully.
9. It is settled proposition of criminal law that burden lies upon prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of prosecution in a criminal trial, throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26.07.2019, PW1/complainant HC Rajeev alongwith PW2, PW3 and PW5 were on patrolling duty in the area of PS Anand Vihar and when they reached near Majhar while going from Park Plaza hotel towards Metro Mall then they noticed the accused who appeared to be suspicious to them. Now, Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides as under:
22.49. 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.FIR No. 276/2019 State Vs. Chand Mohd. Page No. 7/11
Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.24 18:10:08 +0530 Note:- The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained.
11. It is pertinent to state here that in the case in hand no such departure entry in respect of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 has been placed on record by the prosecution.
12. Further, PW1 has deposed that after recovery of the case property, he has prepared its sketch and had seized the same and thereafter he had prepared the tehrir and sent it to the police station for registration of the FIR. Thus, the FIR was registered later on while the sketch Ex. PW1/A and seizure memo Ex. PW1/B were prepared beforehand by PW1. However, perusal of record reveals that the said sketch as well as the seizure memo bears the FIR no. of the case in hand. In this regard Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pradeep Saini v. State 2009SCC OnLine Del2803 has observed that:-
70. Another circumstance which needs to be highlighted is that as per the case of the prosecution the sketch Ex.PW-3/D of the knife purportedly recovered from the possession of accused Kishore Kumar was prepared before the registration of the FIR Ex.PW-2/B. Surprisingly, sketch Ex.PW-3/D of the knife contains the number of the FIR registered in the present case. The prosecution has not offered any explanation whatsoever as to under what circumstances number of the FIR Ex.PW-2/B has appeared on the document, which was allegedly prepared before registration of the FIR. This gives rise to two inferences; either the FIR Ex. PW-2/B was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the knife or number of the said FIR was inserted in said document after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the knife in the manner alleged by the prosecution.
13. In the case in hand as well there is no explanation on the part of FIR No. 276/2019 State Vs. Chand Mohd. Page No. 8/11 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.24 18:10:14 +0530 prosecution as to how the sketch and seizure memo bears the FIR number. The said facts raises grave doubt upon the story of prosecution as the possibility of tempering with the documents cannot be ruled out.
14. It is further pertinent to state here in that as per story of prosecution accused was apprehended from a public place however no public witness has been joined by the IO during the alleged recovery. The fact that the seizure memo and sketch of the buttondar knife bears the FIR number and further no DD entry is placed on record to show that abovesaid police official were on patrolling duty on abovesaid date, time and place, has already raised reasonable suspicion upon the case of the prosecution. In such circumstances it was incumbent upon the IO to join any public witness in order to prove the recovery from the accused. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Surender @ Dheeraj v. State 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7506, had observed as under:-
77.The arrests of the accused were all in public places and yet none of the arrests were in the presence of independent public witnesses. Parrot-like statements to the effect that passersby were asked but declined to join are given by the IOs in the present case. This does not convince the Court. In Kehar Singh v. State (1988) 3 SCC 609 : AIR 1988 SC 1883 one of the accused, Balbir Singh, was arrested at the bus stand at Najafgarh, which was a public place but there were no independent public witnesses to the arrest. It was argued by the State that there was no such requirement in the Cr PC. Repelling this contention, the Supreme Court observed:
"It may be as technically argued by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the presence of public witness under the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure is required when there is FIR No. 276/2019 State Vs. Chand Mohd. Page No. 9/11 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.24 18:10:18 +0530 search and seizure from the house or property of the accused but not when a person is arrested and something is recovered from the personal Search. But it is well-known that in all matters where the police wants that the story should be believed they always get an independent witness of the locality so that that evidence may lend support to what is alleged by the police officers. Admittedly for this arrest at Najafgarh and for the seizure of the articles from the person of this accused is no other evidence except the evidence of police officers. Independent witness in this case would be all the more necessary especially in view of what has been found above as his release after the earlier arrest is not established, and his abscondence is not proved. In such a controversial situation the presence of an independent witness from the public, if not of the locality, would have lent some support to the case of the prosecution."
78.In the present case every arrest is on the basis of both information provided by and identification by a secret informer who is not produced as a PW. Most arrests have taken place from open public places and during times when there is a lot of movement of the public. It is therefore difficult to accept that in every such instance, no independent witness was available. The circumstance of arrest has not been convincingly proved by the prosecution.
15. In the present matter as well, no reasonable explanation has been put forth by the prosecution as to why any independent witness was not joined at the time of search of person of the accused when the same was conducted at a public place.
16. Further, the accused has placed on record copy of a robkar issued in respect of RC of his motorcycle. Perusal of the same reveals that the said FIR No. 276/2019 State Vs. Chand Mohd. Page No. 10/11 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.24 18:10:23 +0530 motorcycle was newly registered on 23.07.2019 itself and the date of commission of offence in this case is 26.07.2019 which is only 3 days later than the date of registration. It is contended by ld. Defence counsel that because the accused had newly purchased the motorcycle therefore, no plate was not issued to him by the very next day i.e., date of the incident. This court finds force in the contention of ld. defence counsel and the same is duly corroborated with the aforesaid copy of robkar as well. Thus, in light of the above-said facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act and u/s 39/192 MV Act.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date: PRAGATI 2025.09.24 18:10:30 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (PRAGATI) on dated 24th September, 2025 ACJM/SHAHDARA DISTRICT/ KARKARDOOMA COURTS/ DELHI/24.09.2025
Present judgment consisted of 11 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date:
PRAGATI 2025.09.24
18:10:35
+0530
(PRAGATI)
ACJM/SHAHDARA DISTRICT/
KARKARDOOMA COURTS/
DELHI/24.09.2025
FIR No. 276/2019 State Vs. Chand Mohd. Page No. 11/11