Delhi District Court
State vs Sabir@Chhotu on 28 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JMFC-03, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided by: Sh. Kartik Taparia
State Vs.Shabir@Chotu
FIR No.314/2020
Police Station : H.N.Din
Under Section: 25/54/59 Arms Act
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. number of the case :5756/2020
2. Date of commission of offence :12.10.2020
3. Date of institution of the case :21.11.2020
4. Name of the complainant :Ct. Ramkesh Meena
:Shabir@Chotu
Name, parentage and address of S/o Sh.Israile
5.
the accused R/o H.No.4/41, Sunder Nursery,
H.N.Din, New Delhi
6. Offence complained or proved : 25/54/59 Arms Act
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 28.06.2025
FIR No.314/2020 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Shabir@Chotu Page No. 1 of 9
BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. Vide this judgment this Court shall dispose off the present case u/s 25/54/59Arms
Act.
2. In brief, the facts as alleged by the prosecution are that on 12.10.2020 at about
8.15PM at Service road, Lala Lajpat Rai Marg near Khusro Park, within the
jurisdiction of PS H.N.Din, accused was found in possession of a button actuated
knife having length of handle 12CM, length of blade 11 CM, width of blade
2.5CM and total length 23CM in contravention of notification issued by Delhi
Administration and committed offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
3. The accused appeared before the court and copy of charge sheet was supplied to
him as per section 207 Cr.PC. Accused was served charge u/s 25/54/59Arms Act
on 28.03.2022 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, in all, examined 2
witnesses, whose testimony in brief is as follows:-
(a) PW-1 HC Ramkesh Meena has deposed that on 12.10.2020, he was on pa-
trolling duty alongwith Ct.Rajesh in the area of Khusro Park. They made their
departure entry vide GD no.59A which is Ex-PW1/1. At about 07.45PM, they
reached near Khusro Park, a secret informer met him and informed that a boy
namely Sabir was roaming in Khusro park carrying an illegal knife. There-
after, a raiding party consisting him, Ct. Rajesh and secret informer was pre-
pared. Thereafter, they took their position adjacent to fence of Khusro park
hiding themselves. At about 08.05PM, the accused was found coming on the
service road from the side of Oberai hotel and secret informer pointed towards
FIR No.314/2020 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Shabir@Chotu Page No. 2 of 9
him stating that the said information was given regarding him. After that, se-
cret informer was relieved. PW1 with the help of Ct.Rajesh apprehended ac-
cused after chasing him. Upon cursory search of accused a button actuated
knife was recovered. PW1 gave intimation to DO and after sometime HC
Ravinder came at the spot to whom he handed over recovered knife and cus-
tody of accused. IO prepared sketch memo of knife vide Ex-PW1/2. Pullanda
was prepared and sealed with the seal of RK. Seal after use was handed over
to Ct. Rajesh. Seizure memo of knife was prepared vide Ex-PW1/3. IO in-
quired him and recorded his statement vide Ex-PW1/4. IO prepared rukka
vide Ex-PW1/5 and same was handed over to Ct. Rajesh for registration of
FIR. He went to PS and got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, he
came back to the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to IO.
IO prepared site plan vide Ex-PW1/6. Accused was interrogated. Accused was
arrested, his personal search was conducted and his disclosure statement was
recorded vide Ex-PW1/7, Ex-PW1/8 &Ex-PW1/ 9. Case property was brought
to PS and deposited into malkhana. Medical examination of accused was got
conducted and thereafter, he as lodged into lockup. IO recorded his statement.
PW1 correctly identified accused and case property in the court. PW1 was
duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
(b) PW-2 HC Ravinder has deposed that on 12.10.2020, upon receipt of DD
no.65A, he went to service road near Khusro Park at about 08.45PM where,
he met with Ct.Ramkesh and Ct.Rajesh who handed over recovered knife and
custody of accused to him. PW2 prepared sketch memo of knife vide Ex-
PW1/2. Pullanda was prepared and sealed with the seal of RK. Seal after use
was handed over to Ct.Rajesh. Seizure memo of knife was prepared vide Ex-
PW1/3. PW2 inquired Ct.Ramkesh and recorded his statement Ex-PW1/4.
PW2 prepared rukka vide Ex-PW1/5 and same was handed over to Ct.Rajesh
for registration of FIR. He went to PS and got the FIR registered. After regis-
FIR No.314/2020 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Shabir@Chotu Page No. 3 of 9
tration of FIR, he came back to the spot and handed over original rukka and
copy of FIR to him. PW2 prepared site plan vide Ex-PW1/6. Accused was in-
terrogated. Accused was arrested, his personal search was conducted and his
disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex-PW1/7, Ex-PW1/8 &Ex-PW1/9.
The case property was brought to PS and deposited into malkhana. Medical
examination of accused was got conducted and thereafter, he lodged into
lockup. PW2 recorded statement of witnesses u/s 161CrPC. PW2 prepared
chargesheet and filed the same before the court. PW2 correctly identified ac-
cused and case property in the court. PW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld.
Defence counsel.
5. Thereafter, the PE was closed and the matter was listed for recording the
statement of accused U/s 313 CrPC wherein accused opted not to lead DE.
Hence, DE was closed.
Arguments
6. At the time of final arguments, Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution
has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and all the ingredients of relevant
section are complete. In reply to this, it is argued by Ld.LAC on behalf of accused
that police had falsely implicated the accused in the present case, that there is no
public witness of the incident and thus prosecution has failed to prove its case
against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. It is further argued that the search
and seizure has not been videographed. I have heard the arguments addressed by
the Ld. APP and the Ld. counsel for the accused and perused the documents on
record carefully.
Analysis and Findings
Absence of independent witnesses
7. Evidently, no public witness to the recovery of knife have been either cited in the
FIR No.314/2020 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Shabir@Chotu Page No. 4 of 9
list of witnesses or examined by the prosecution. The recovery is alleged to have
been effected on 12.10.2020 at about 8.15PM at service road, Lala Lajpat Rai
Marg near Khusro Park within the jurisdiction of PS H.N.Din. The spot of
recovery as per the site plan Ex-PW1/6 was located on a main road. The place of
recovery and apprehension of the accused persons is, therefore, clearly located in
an area where public persons could be available.
8. Moreover, it is not the case of the prosecution that no public person was present at
or near the spot of arrest and recovery. All the prosecution witnesses, in their
cross-examination, stated that IO did ask certain public persons to join the
proceedings however they refused citing just reasons but no written notice was
served upon the said persons who had refused to join investigation. Further, there
is nothing on record to show that they had served any notice under Section
160Cr.PC. upon the persons who refused to join the investigation. Thus, the
prosecution has failed to prove that any serious effort was made by the
prosecution to join public witnesses in the proceedings. From the perusal of the
record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to have been made.
It is a well settled proposition that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt
over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. also
casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable
persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a
doubt on the fairness of the investigation. Reliance is placed on paragraph 6 of the
judgment in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration , 1989 Cri.L.J. 127,
wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
” … According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public
witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public
person was present there.
It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near
Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time
like 07.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters forFIR No.314/2020 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Shabir@Chotu Page No. 5 of 9
boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly,
there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police
officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good
foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they tried
to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the
investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join
any public witness even though number of them were present.
No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is
forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case
of serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an
apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves
with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the
I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent
witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been
made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the
arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the
accused.”
9. 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. Section 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.’
10. 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
FIR No.314/2020 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Shabir@Chotu Page No. 6 of 9
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.
11. This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out
or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public
witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been
held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, in
the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a
doubt on the prosecution but there are other circumstances too, as discussed
hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
Contradictory chain of events/documentation:
12. It has been deposed by PW-2 and PW-1 that seizure memo of
knife exhibited as Ex.PW-1/3 and sketch of the recovered knife PW-1/2 has been
prepared prior to the registration of the FIR. Now, a perusal of these documentary
evidences reflect that the FIR no. and its
details have been mentioned on these documents, although as per
the version of the prosecution witnesses the same has been
prepared prior to the registration of FIR. It is not the case of the
prosecution that these details have been filled later on. It would
also be pertinent to cite the observation of Hon’ble High court of
Delhi in the case of Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 VI AD
(Delhi) 569, the relevant excerpt is cited below:-
“… Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex.PW7/A)
received by the Sub-Inspector Narender Kumar TyagiFIR No.314/2020 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Shabir@Chotu Page No. 7 of 9
(PW-7), the notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex.
PW5/A) alleged to have been served on the appellant, the
seizure memo (Ex. PW1/A) and the report submitted under
State v. Om Prakash Section 57 of the Act (Ex.PW7/D)
bear the number of the FIR(Ex.PW4/B). The number
of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) given on the top of the aforesaid
documents is in the same ink and in the same
handwriting,which clearly indicates that these documents
were prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not
offered any explanation as to under what circumstance
number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) had appeared on the top
of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly
prepared on the spot. This gives rise to two inferences that
either the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) was recorded prior to
the alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the
said FIR was inserted in these documents 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
contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution.”
Possibility of tampering with the case property not ruled out
13. The prosecution has failed to prove that the seal was handed over to some
independent witness after the seizure of case property. None of the prosecution
witnesses could depose anything about handing over the seal. In such a factual
backdrop, the seal remained with the police officials of the same police station
and therefore, the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled
out.
14. Having considered the above and thoroughly perusing the material on record, this
court is of the view that the benefit of material contradictions, omissions and
improvements must go in favour of the accused herein.
CONCLUSION:
15. The fact that no independent witnesses are cited or examined, the possibility of
FIR No.314/2020 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Shabir@Chotu Page No. 8 of 9
tampering with the case property has not been ruled out and various
contradictions and discrepancies have appeared in the testimony of the witnesses,
when kept in juxtaposition to each other, caste a cloud of suspicion over the
prosecution version. Therefore, the benefit of doubt must be given to accused and
in my considered opinion, accused Shabir@Chotu stands acquitted of offences
u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
Announced in open court Today on 28.06.2025.
(KARTIK TAPARIA)
JMFC-03/SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No.314/2020 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Shabir@Chotu Page No. 9 of 9
[ad_1]
Source link