Delhi District Court
State vs Sunil Kumar Alias Sonu on 7 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL SAINI,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
DLSH020003102025
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.541/2024
Police Station: Jyoti
Nagar
(Cr.Case No.68/2025)
b Date of the commission of : 22.07.2024
the offence
c Name of the Complainant : Ct.Vipin Kumar
d Name of Accused person : Sunil Kumar @ Sonu
and his parentage and S/o Jagpal Singh
residence R/o: H. No. E 102, Gali no.
5, Ashok Nagar, Delhi
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 : 07.05.2025
i Order pronounced on : 07.05.2025
Brief statement of facts of the case and trial proceedings:
1.
The case of the Prosecution against the Accused Sunil
Sharma @ Sonu S/o Jagpal Singh is that on 26.12.2024 at 8.30
pm near Loni Gol Chakkar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS
Jyoti Nagar, accused was found in possession of one buttondar
knife in contravention of notification issued by Delhi
Administration. On the said allegations, Accused was booked
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu SAINI Date:
2025.05.07
15:46:54
FIR No. 541/2024 +0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 1 of 18
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 08.01.2025 whereupon Cognizance was taken in this
matter on 10.01.2025 and the copy of charge-sheet was supplied
to the accused. On the same day, charge was framed against the
Accused Sunil Kumar @ Sonu S/o Jagpal Singh 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 has examined three witnesses i.e.,
PW1 Ct. Vipin, PW2 Ct. Naval and PW3 HC Satender. The
remaining witnesses i.e., DO/ASI Bal Kishan and Shri Nathu
Ram Dealing Hand Dy. Secretary who had proved the DAD
notification dated 29.10.1980 were dropped from list of
witnesses on account of statement of the Accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C
dated 17.03.2025 wherein he admitted the registration of FIR and
certificate u/s 65B IEA (Ex. A1 Colly).
4. After the conclusion of the Prosecution evidence,
statement of Accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on
09.04.2025 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.
APP for the State.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
2025.05.07
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu 15:47:02
+0530
FIR No. 541/2024
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 2 of 18
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.
6.1. PW: 1: Ct. Vipin:- He deposed that on 26.12.2024, he
along with Ct. Naval were on patrolling duty. During patrolling
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
FIR No. 541/2024 2025.05.07
15:47:09
+0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 3 of 18
duty they reached at Nala Road, Jal Board near Loni Gol
Chakkar. At about 8.30 pm, one person came from the side of
Kardampuri, Ambedkar College and going towards Nala Service
Road to Loni Gol Chakkar. After seeing them in police uniform,
he turned back and going towards Ambedkar College. He with
the help of Ct.Naval apprehended said person after taking some
distance. They asked him why he turned back, but he did not
give any satisfactory answer. Thereafter, he took cursory search
of the said accused and recovered one buttondar knife from the
right side pocket of his pant. They came to know the name of the
said person as Sunil Kumar @ Sonu. He gave information to the
duty officer on his mobile phone. After sometime, IO/HC
Satender came at the spot and he handed over accused and case
property to him. IO requested public persons to join the
investigation but none agreed and went away without giving their
names and addresses. IO interrogated the accused. IO prepared
videography and photography of the recovery of the case
property and same was uploaded on E Sakshya.
IO had shown the videography in his mobile phone which
is Ex. P1.
Thereafter, IO put buttondar knife on a white blank
paper and prepared its sketch memo which is Ex. PW1/A
bearing his signature at point A and measurement of the said
knife i.e. total length of the knife was 23.7 cm, length of the
blade was 11.5 cm, length of the handle was 12.2 cm and width
was 2.8 cm. Thereafter, IO prepared pullanda of the said knife
and sealed it with the seal of ST and IO seized the same vide
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu SAINI Date:
2025.05.07
15:47:16
FIR No. 541/2024 +0530U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 4 of 18
seizure memo Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. IO
recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature
at point A. IO prepared rukka and same was handed over to him
for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to PS and got
registered the present FIR and he came back at the spot and he
handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to the IO. IO
prepared site plan at their instance which is Ex. PW1/D,bearing
his signature at point A.
IO interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest
memos and personal search memos which are Ex. PW1/E and
Ex. PW1/F, both bearing his signatures at point A. IO recorded
disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW1/G, bearing his
signature at point A. 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. IO recorded his
statement.
He had identified the accused as well as the case property
which is is Ex. P2.
During cross examination by Ld. LAC for the
accused witness deposed that he did not make any separate
departure entry before leaving PS. He had left the PS at about
7.30 pm and he reached at the spot at about 8.00 pm. He
admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were
coming and going there and that that no written notice was
served upon any public persons who reused to join or that
seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to
registration of the FIR and nothing was changed after registration
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu
SAINI Date:
2025.05.07
15:47:24
FIR No. 541/2024 +0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 5 of 18
of the FIR. He admitted that he did not prepare seal handing
over memo and receiving over memo. He does not remember the
colour of the clothes of the accused which he was wearing at the
time of incident. IO did not seize the clothes of the accused in the
present matter. IO handed over rukka to him at around 10.00
pm and he came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around
10.40 pm. IO prepared site plan at about 10.45 pm. He admitted
that the case property was handed over by him and Ct. Naval to
the IO. He had denied the suggestion that IO prepared fake video
of recovery of case property at PS or that nothing was recovered
from the possession of the accused. He had denied the
suggestion that the case property was planted upon accused or
that accused is falsely implicated in the present matter and he
was arrested from his house despite the spot. He had denied the
suggestion that IO did not request public persons to join the
investigation or that he never visited at the spot and all
proceedings were conducted while sitting at PSPW 2 Ct. Naval:- He deposed that on 26.12.2024, he
along with Ct. Vipin were on patrolling duty. During patrolling
duty they reached at Nala Road, Jal Board near Loni Gol
Chakkar. At about 8.30 pm, one person came from the side of
Kardampuri, Ambedkar College and going towards Nala Service
Road to Loni Gol Chakkar. After seeing them in police uniform,
he turned back and going towards Ambedkar College. He with
the help of Ct. Vipin apprehended said person after taking some
distance. They asked him why he turned back, but he did not
give any satisfactory answer. Thereafter, Ct. Vipin took cursory
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu SAINI Date:
2025.05.07
FIR No. 541/2024 15:47:31
+0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 6 of 18
search of the said accused and recovered one buttondar knife
from the right side pocket of his pant. They came to know the
name of the said person as Sunil Kumar @ Sonu. Ct. Vipin gave
information to the duty officer on his mobile phone. After
sometime, IO/HC Satender came at the spot and he handed over
accused and case property to him. IO requested public persons to
join the investigation but none agreed and went away without
giving their names and addresses. IO interrogated the accused.
IO prepared videography and photography of the recovery of the
case property and same was uploaded on E Sakshya.
IO had shown the videography in his mobile phone which
is already Ex. P1.
Thereafter, IO put buttondar knife on a white blank paper
and prepared its sketch memo which is already Ex. PW1/A
bearing his signature at point A and measurement of the said
knife i.e. total length of the knife was 23.7 cm, length of the
blade was 11.5 cm, length of the handle was 12.2 cm and width
was 2.8 cm. Thereafter, IO prepared pullanda of the said knife
and sealed it with the seal of ST and IO seized the same vide
seizure memo already Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point
B. IO recorded statement of Ct. Vipin and prepared rukka and
same was handed over to Ct. Vipin for registration of the FIR.
Accordingly, he went to PS and got registered the present FIR
and he came back at the spot and handed over the original rukka
and copy of the FIR to the IO. IO prepared site plan at their
instance which is already Ex. PW1/D,bearing his signature at
point B.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
2025.05.07
15:47:37
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu +0530
FIR No. 541/2024
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 7 of 18
IO interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest
memos and personal search memos which are already Ex. PW1/E
and Ex. PW1/F, both bearing his signatures at point B. IO
recorded disclosure statement of accused which is already Ex.
PW1/G, bearing his signature at point B. 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. IO
recorded his statement.
He had correctly identified the accused as wellas the case
property which is Ex. P1.
During cross examination by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel
for the accused witness deposed that he did not make any
separate departure entry before leaving PS. He had left the PS at
about 7.55 pm and reached at the spot at about 8.15 pm. He
admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were
coming and going there. He admitted that no written notice was
served upon any public persons who reused to join and that the
seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to
registration of the FIR and nothing was changed after registration
of the FIR and that IO did not prepare seal handing over memo
and receiving over memo. He does not remember the colour of
the clothes of the accused which he was wearing at the time of
incident. IO did not seize the clothes of the accused in the present
matter. IO handed over rukka to Ct. Vipin at around 10.00 pm
and he came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 10.50
pm. He admitted that the case property was handed over by him
and Ct. Naval to the IO. He had denied the suggestion that IO
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu 2025.05.07
15:47:44
FIR No. 541/2024 +0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 8 of 18
prepared fake video of recovery of case property at PS or that
nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused. IO
prepared site plan at about 10.55 pm. He had denied the
suggestion that the case property was planted upon accused or
that accused is falsely implicated in the present matter and he
was arrested from his house despite the spot or that IO did not
request public persons to join the investigation or that he never
visited at the spot and all proceedings were conducted while
sitting at PS.PW: 3 HC Satende:- He deposed that he had received
DD no.71A regarding recovery of buttondar knife which is Ex.
PW3/A and thereafter he went to the spot i.e. Nala Service Road,
Jal Board near Loni Gol Chakkar where he met Ct. Vipin and Ct.
Naval and they handed over accused and case property to him.
He requested public persons to join the investigation but none
agreed and went away without giving their names and addresses.
He interrogated the accused. He prepared videography and
photography of the recovery of the case property and same was
uploaded on E Sakshya.
IO has shown the videography in his mobile phone which
is already Ex. P1. The certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act
is Ex. PW3/B, bearing his signature at point A.
Thereafter, he put buttondar knife on a white blank paper
and prepared its sketch memo which is already Ex. PW1/A
bearing his signature at point C and measurement of the said
knife i.e. total length of the knife was 23.7 cm, length of the
blade was 11.5 cm, length of the handle was 12.2 cm and width
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
FIR No. 541/2024 2025.05.07
15:47:52
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 9 of 18
was 2.8 cm. Thereafter, he prepared pullanda of the said knife
and sealed it with the seal of ST and he seized the same vide
seizure memo already Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point
C. he recorded statement of Ct. Vipin which is already Ex.
PW1/C, bearing his signature at point B and prepared rukka
which is Ex. PW3/C, bearing his signature at point A and same
was handed over to Ct. Vipin for registration of the FIR.
Accordingly, he went to PS and got registered the present FIR
and he came back at the spot and handed over the original rukka
and copy of the FIR to him. He prepared site plan at the instance
of Ct. Vipin and Ct. Naval which is already Ex. PW1/D,bearing
his signature at point C.
He interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest
memos and personal search memos which are already Ex. PW1/E
and Ex. PW1/F, both bearing his signatures at point C. He
recorded disclosure statement of accused which is already Ex.
PW1/G, bearing his signature at point C. 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. He
recorded statements of Ct. Vipin and Ct. Naval. On the next day,
he had produced the accused before the court and sent him to J/C.
He obtained the DAD notification dated 29.10.1980 which is
already Ex. A2.
After completion of investigation, he had prepared
chargesheet and same was submitted before the court for trial.
He had correctly identified he accused as well as the case
property which is Ex. P2 during the testimony of PW1.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu 2025.05.07
15:47:59
FIR No. 541/2024 +0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 10 of 18
During cross examination by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for
the accused witness deposed that he did not make any separate
departure entry before leaving PS. He had left the PS at about
8.55 pm and reached at the spot at about 9.00 pm. He admitted
that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming
and going there and that no written notice was served upon any
public persons who reused to join and that the seizure memo and
sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of the FIR and
nothing was changed after registration of the FIR. He further
admtited that he did not prepare seal handing over memo and
receiving over memo. He does not remember the colour of the
clothes of the accused which he was wearing at the time of
incident. He did not seize the clothes of the accused in the
present matter. He handed over rukka to Ct. Vipin at around
10.05 pm and he came back at the spot with copy of FIR at
around 10.45 pm. He prepared site plan at about 11.00 pm. He
admitted that the case property was recovered by Ct. Naval and
Ct. Vipin prior to his reaching at the spot. He had denied the
suggestion that the case property was planted upon accused or
that accused is falsely implicated in the present matter and he
was arrested from his house despite the spot. He had denied the
suggestion that he prepared fake video of recovery of case
property at PS or that nothing was recovered from the possession
of the accused or that IO did not request public persons to join
the investigation or that he never visited at the spot and all
proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
2025.05.07
15:48:05
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu +0530
FIR No. 541/2024
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 11 of 18
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 :
“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
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu SAINI Date:
2025.05.07
FIR No. 541/2024 15:48:11
+0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 12 of 18
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
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
RAHUL
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu SAINI
FIR No. 541/2024
Digitally signed
by RAHUL SAINI
Date: 2025.05.07
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 15:48:18 +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 13 of 18
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
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
FIR No. 541/2024 2025.05.07
15:48:25
+0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 14 of 18
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
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/A
and Ex. PW1/B. The sketch memo of the knife Ex. PW1/A and
seizure memo of the knife Ex. PW1/B bear the number of FIR.
Upon watching the Videograpy, it revealed that nothing was
recovered from the possession of the accused rather IO was seen
giving alleged weapon in the hand of the accused. As per the
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
FIR No. 541/2024 2025.05.07
15:48:33
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 15 of 18
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 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:
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
2025.05.07
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu 15:49:00
FIR No. 541/2024 +0530U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 16 of 18
“… 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
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.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
2025.05.07
15:49:09
+0530
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu
FIR No. 541/2024
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 17 of 18
14. In view of above said discussion, the Prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, Accused Sunil Kumar @ Sonu S/o Shri Jagpal
Singh is acquitted of the charge 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
Date:
Announced in the open court SAINI 2025.05.07
15:49:17
+0530
on 07.05.2025
(Rahul Saini)
JMFC-08(Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
07.05.2025
[This judgment contains 18 signed pages]
[This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.]State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu
FIR No. 541/2024
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 18 of 18
[ad_1]
Source link