State vs Arish Harish on 2 August, 2025

0
2


Delhi District Court

State vs Arish Harish on 2 August, 2025

                   IN THE COURT OF MS. AAYUSHI SAXENA,
                    JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05,
              SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI


                  Cr. Case No.      -:   1214/2022
                  CNR No.           -:   DLSH020113072021
                  FIR No.           -:   554/2021
                  Police Station    -:   Jafrabad
                  Section(s)        -:   25 Arms Act


                In the matter of:                                      Digitally
                                                                       signed by
                                                                       AAYUSHI
                                                               AAYUSHI SAXENA
                    STATE                                      SAXENA Date:
                                                                       2025.08.02
                    (Represented by Sh. Bhuvnesh Sharma,               15:50:38
                                                                       +0530
                    Ld. APP for the State)
                                            VERSUS


                    Arish @ Harish
                    S/o Afsar Khan,
                    R/o House No. C-216, Gali No.8, Chauhan Banger,
                    Jafrabad, Delhi.

                                                                  ...... Accused

                                                            ASI Satish Rana,
                    1.
 Name of Complainant             :
                                                            PSI No.28960827
                                                         Arish @ Harish
                                                         S/o Afsar Khan,
                                                         R/o House No.
                    2. Name of Accused                 :
                                                         C-216, Gali No.8,
                                                         Chauhan Banger,
                                                         Jafrabad, Delhi.
                                                            Section 25 Arms

3. Offence complained of or proved :

Act

4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty

5. Date of commission of offence : 13.10.2021

State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25
Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 1 of 16

6. Date of filing of case : 08.12.2021

7. Date of pronouncement : 02.08.2025

8. Final Order : Acquittal

BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE
DECISION:

FACTUAL MATRIX –

1. The story of the prosecution is that on 13.10.2021
at 7:30 PM at Tent Wala School, 66 Ft. Road, Jafrabad, the
accused was found in possession of one Desi Katta
alongwith two live cartridges without any valid license, in
contravention of provisions of Arms Act. The said Desi
Katta alongwith two live cartridges were seized and taken
into possession by the police. After completing the
formalities, investigation was carried out. On culmination
of the same, the Police Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.,
against the accused was filed under Section 25 Arms Act in
the court.

2. Vide order dated 18.05.2023 passed by Ld.
Predecessor of this Court, cognizance in the present matter
was taken and summons were directed to be issued upon the
accused. On 21.08.2023, accused was produced from JC
and copy of charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet
alongwith documents annexed therewith, were supplied to
him as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.

State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25
Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 2 of 16

3. On finding a prima facie case against the accused
charge under Section 25 Arms Act was framed against him
by this Court on 06.12.2023, to which the accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.

4. On 06.12.2023 itself, vide his separate statement
recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C., the accused had admitted
following documents;

4.1.Copy of FIR No. 554/2021 which was exhibited
as Ex. P1.

4.2.Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which
was exhibited as Ex. P2.

4.3.DD No. 4 dated 17.10.2021, which was exhibited
as Ex.P3.

4.4.FSL Report, which was exhibited as Ex.P4.

4.5.Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act, which was exhibited as
Ex.P5.

In view of admission of above-documents, witness
mentioned at serial no.3 and 6, of the list of witnesses
filed by the prosecution, were dropped.

PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25
Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 3 of 16
examined five witnesses.

5.1 PW-1 HC Irfan Ahmad inter-alia deposed that on
07.10.2021, he was posted at AS & R cell as HC and
he along with ASI Satish Rana, Ct. Shravan, Ct.
Jagdish and Ct. Rajesh were on patrolling duty vide
DD No. 04A and they reached at around 06:50 PM at
Janta Colony, Peeli Mitti. He further deposed that one
secret informer met ASI Satish Rana and he told that
one Arish, who was a BC, would be coming near Tent
Wala School, Jafrabad, in order to meet someone, and
if raided, he could be caught. He further deposed that
ASI Satish Rana, without wasting time, shared the
information with I/C special staff north east Delhi
Insp. Rohtash Kumar through phone and he directed
to take necessary action. He further deposed that ASI
Satish Rana shared the order of Insp. Rohtash and the
information with all of them along with the secret
informer and also requested few public persons to join
the raid but none of them joined citing their personal
reason and left from the spot. He further deposed that
due to paucity of time no notice could be served to
anyone. He further deposed that ASI Satish Rana
prepared a raiding party and at around 07:10 PM, they
reached Tent wala School, where 4-5 public persons
were again requested by ASI Satish Rana to join the
raid but none of them joined citing their personal
reasons. He further deposed that he along with ASI
State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25
Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 4 of 16
Satish Rana, Ct. Shravan and the secret informer took
position near the wall at 66 Feet road, adjacent to the
wall of Tent vala School and the remaining staff took
position on the opposite side of the road. He further
deposed that the staff was keeping an eye on the
vehicles that were coming and at around 07:30 PM,
one boy came on a scooty make Jupiter from the side
of Jafrabad, near Tent vala school Gate and he was
waiting for someone. He further deposed that the
secret informer pointed out towards the said boy and
he along with Ct. Shravan and ASI Satish approached
the boy and caught hold of the said boy. He further
deposed that seeing them, the other staff also came
and on cursory search of the boy, one Deshi Katta was
recovered from his left Dhub of his pant and one live
cartridge from the right pocket of his pant. He further
deposed that the katta was opened and checked, which
was found to contain one live cartridge, which was
taken out. He further deposed that on inquiry the boy
told his name as Arish @ Harish s/o Afsar Khan.
Further, he deposed that the Katta was in total 26.5
CM with Barrel 15.5 CM and Butt 08 CM and body
around 11 CM with the live cartridges 7.5 CM. He
further deposed that the katta had a screw on the butt
covered with wooden piece and brass body of the
pistol on which one catch was available with the help
of which it could be opened and with the help of

State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25
Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 5 of 16
trigger the same could be fired. He further deposed
that ASI Satish took the Katta and the two live
cartridges and placed them on a white sheet of paper
to prepare a sketch Ex.PW1/A measuring the Katta
and the cartridges and thereafter, the katta and the
cartridges were kept in a plastic transparent box and
pullanda was prepared and seized vide memo Ex.
PW1/B. He further deposed that the pullanda was
sealed with seal of ‘SR’ and after the use, the seal was
handed over to him by ASI Satish Rana. He further
deposed that ASI Satish Rana prepared a seal handing
over memo Ex.PW1/C and also obtained his signature
on the same and thereafter ASI Satish Rana also filled
FSL form. He further deposed that the scooty bearing
no. DL-5S-AV-6964 was also seized vide memo Ex.
PW1/D by ASI Satish Rana and on inquiry, Arish told
that the abovesaid scooty was stolen by him from
Babarpur and thereafter, ASI Satish Rana checked the
scooty’s engine number and chasis number on Zipnet,
which was found to be stolen in e-FIR no. 25865, Dt.
17.09.2021 PS welcome. He further deposed that ASI
Satish Rana recorded Tehrir and the same was handed
over to Ct. Shravan and ASI Satish Rana also handed
over the case property, the accused, Sketch and
Seizure memos to ASI Harender, who came to the spot
as 2nd IO. He further deposed that Ct. Shravan returned
with copy of FIR and original Tehrir, which were

State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25
Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 6 of 16
handed over to ASI Harender. He further deposed that
ASI Harender prepared a site plan on the deposition of
ASI Satish Rana and thereafter, ASI Harender entered
the FIR number on the seizure memos and sketch of
the Deshi Katta and on the pullanda. He further
deposed that thereafter, ASI Harender arrested the
accused Arish @ Harish vide memo Ex. PW1/E and
personally searched him vide memo Ex. PW1/F, in
which cash of Rs.70/- was recovered from his
possession. He further deposed that ASI Harender
recorded a disclosure of accused Ex. PW1/G and
thereafter, they took the accused to PS and after
medical, the accused was sent to lock-up and the case
property was deposited in Malkhana and thereafter, his
statement along with statement of Ct. Shravan were
recorded on computer by IO ASI Harender.

PW-1 correctly identified the case property Ex.A1
which was produced by MHC(M) on the date of his
examination.

PW-1 correctly identified the accused Aarish @
Harish also, who was present in court on that date.

PW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. LAC for the
accused.

5.2 PW-2 HC Sarwan deposed on similar lines as
PW-1.

PW-2 correctly identified the accused, who was
State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25
Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 7 of 16
present in the court, during his testimony.

PW-2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
accused.

5.3 PW-3 SI Harender also deposed on similar lines as
PW-1 and PW-2. He additionally deposed that on
18.10.2021 he recorded statement of HC Irfan and Ct.
Shravan. He further deposed that on 26.10.2021, he
instructed HC Lal Bahadur to deposit the case exhibits
in FSL Rohini. He further deposed that HC Lal
Bahadur submitted the same and came back to the
Police Station, whereafter he recorded statement of
HC Lal Bahadur. He further deposed that he prepared
the challan and filed before the Court without FSL
result. He also deposed that after getting the FSL
result, he filed supplementary chargesheet, after
getting sanction from DCP concerned.

PW-3 correctly identified the accused during his
testimony before the Court.

PW-3 was duly cross-examined by Ld. LAC for the
accused.

5.4 PW-4 ASI Lal Bahadur inter-alia deposed that on
26.10.2021, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as MHCM
(CP) and one sealed pullanda (Plastic box) vide road
certificate no. 159/21/2021, dt. 26.10.2021 was taken
by him for depositing at FSL Rohini. He further
deposed that he went to FSL Rohini and deposited the
State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25
Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 8 of 16
sealed pullanda at FSL Rohini and he obtained the
acknowledgment and copy of RC was attached with
the case file. He further deposed that the pullanda was
intact till it was in his possession and the seal was not
tempered. He further deposed that his statement was
recorded by ASI Harender, photocopy of register no.
19 was Mark A and copy of RC was Mark B and
acknowledgment was Mark C.

5.5 PW-5 ASI Satish Rana deposed on similar lines
as PW-1 HC Irfan and PW-2 HC Sarvan.

PW-5 correctly identified the accused during his
testimony before the Court.

PW-5 was duly cross examined by Ld. LAC for
accused.

6. Thereafter, PE was closed on 30.05.2025. On
26.06.2025, statement of accused was recorded under Section
313
Cr.P.C. wherein the accused pleaded innocence. On that
very date, he stated that he did not wish to lead DE and view
of the same, DE stood closed. Thereafter, matter was listed for
final arguments.

7. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Bhuvnesh
Sharma, Ld. APP for the State and by Mr. Bhairav Dass, Ld.
LAC for the accused. Ld. APP for the State has contended that
prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond all
State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25
Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 9 of 16
reasonable doubts and, therefore, the accused deserves to be
convicted for the offence in question.

Per contra, Ld. LAC for accused has argued that
the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and
the case property has been planted upon him. It has been
further argued that no independent public witness was asked
to join the investigation despite availability and the only
witnesses examined by the prosecution are the police officials
whose testimonies are not reliable without corroboration by
public witnesses. Thus, it has been argued that the prosecution
has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts
and the accused is entitled to acquittal.

8. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld.
APP for State and the Ld . LAC for the accused and perused
the documents on record carefully.

9. In the aforementioned backdrop, the Court shall
now proceed to deliberate upon the evidence appearing on
record so as to evaluate if the prosecution has proved its case
on the requisite yardsticks or not.

10. It has been argued by Ld. LAC for accused that no
public witness was joined by the IO during investigation of
the present case and at the time of alleged recovery of the case
property, despite their availability.



State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25 Arms Act
PS Jafrabad                                                                        Page no. 10 of 16

10.1. When PW1 HC Irfan Ahmad was cross
examined by Ld. LAC for the accused, he stated to be
correct that the spot of incident was a public place
having frequent passersby. He also stated that no
names or addresses or the public persons were
recorded.

10.2. PW2 HC Sarwan during his cross
examination, also stated that no names or addresses or
the public persons were recorded despite the spot
being a public place having frequent passerby.
10.3. When PW-5 ASI Satish Rana was cross-
examined by Ld. LAC for accused. He also stated that
no names and addresses of the public persons were
recorded and he also stated that the spot was a public
place having frequent passers by.

10.4. So from the above, it is clear that the spot,
from where the accused was apprehended, was a
public place. Significantly, even as per the admitted
case of the prosecution, no effort whatsoever was
made by the police, either before effecting the alleged
recovery or thereafter, to join any public persons to
witness the same. This only shows that no effort
whatsoever was made by the police officials. The
failure on the part of the police personnel could only
suggest that they were not interested in joining the
public persons in the police proceedings. All the
witnesses examined are police witnesses. Failure on

State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25
Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 11 of 16
the part of the police officials to make sincere effort to
join public witnesses for the proceedings when they
may be available creates reasonable doubt in the
prosecution story.

10.5. Reference can be taken from the decision of
Anoop Joshi Vs. State [1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC),
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi] has observed as under;

“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 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.”

10.6. No doubt, it is settled law that the testimony
of police witnesses can be relied upon if it inspires
confidence of the court but in this case, no plausible
explanation has been put forth by the prosecution for
failure to join public witnesses during the
investigation and specifically at the time of alleged
recovery of case property, despite their availability in
compliance of Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. The same
brings the seizure under a cloud of doubt. Reference is
State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25
Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 12 of 16
made to the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana
High Court in the case of Roop Chand Vs. State of
Haryana
[1999 (1) CLR 69] wherein it was observed
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 public is an afterthought and
is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken
together make the prosecution case highly
doubtful”
10.7. In case of Pradeep Narayana V. State of
Maharashtra
[reported AIR 1995 Supreme

State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25
Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 13 of 16
Court 1930], it was held that failure of police to
join witness from locality during search creates
doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit
of which has to go to the accused.

11. It has been further argued by Ld. LAC for accused
that case property has been tampered with as no seal handing
over or taking over memo was prepared by the IO. Perusal of
testimony of PW-5 shows that the case property was sealed by
him with the seal ‘SR’ and the same was handed over to PW-1
HC Irfan. It is pertinent to note that admittedly, the seal after
use was not handed over to any independent person. It was
handed over by PW-5 ASI Satish Rana to PW-1 HC Irfan
Ahmed. This Court is of the considered opinion that PW1,
himself being a material recovery witness in the present case,
would always be interested in the success of the case of the
prosecution and thus chances of tampering of case property
cannot be ruled out.

11.1. Reference is made to the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah vs State
(Delhi Administration
) 49 (1993) DLT 193 wherein it
was held that:

“It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the
seal after use was handed over to the independent
witness. Even the Public Witness does not utter a
word regarding the handing over of the seal after
use. Therefore, the conclusion which can be
arrived at is that the seal remained with the
Investigating Officer or with the other member of

State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25
Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 14 of 16
the raiding party therefore the possibility of
interference or tempering of the seal and the
contents of the parcel cannot be ruled out.”

11.2. Reference is also made to the judgment of
Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ramji
Singh v. State of Haryana
, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal)
452, wherein it was held that:

“The very purpose of giving seal to an independent
person is to avoid tampering of the case property.”

12. In the present case, the possibility of tampering of
case property cannot be ruled out as it was lying in the same
Malkhana where the police official having possession of the
seal was posted.

13. It has been further contended by Ld. LAC for
accused that all documents of the present case were prepared
in the police station and not at the spot of alleged incident and
the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.

14. Thus, there are major lacunaes in the case of the
prosecution. The aforementioned lacunaes and contradictions
surfacing from the testimonies of various prosecution
witnesses makes it extremely doubtful that on the fateful day,
the accused was found in possession of one desi katta and two
live cartridges, at the alleged time and place. Furthermore, the
recovery of case property from the possession of accused has
also not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt since no independent public witnesses have been joined
State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25
Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 15 of 16
during the investigation and at the time of alleged recovery of
case property, thereby diluting the case of the prosecution.

15. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the present case and the evidence produced
on record, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the
alleged offence under Section 25 Arms Act against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Arish @ Harish
S/o Afsar Khan, is hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 25
Arms Act in FIR No.554/2021, PS Jafrabad.

16. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused at
the time of commencement of trial stand canceled. Surety, if
any, stands discharged. Documents, if any, shall be returned to
its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any, stands
canceled. Case property, if any, shall be disposed of as per
rules, after expiration of period of appeal and as per law.

Digitally
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e. 02.08.2025 signed by
AAYUSHI
AAYUSHI SAXENA
SAXENA Date:

2025.08.02
15:50:45
+0530
(Aayushi Saxena)
JMFC05/SHD/Karkardooma
Courts/Delhi/02.08.2025
Digitally
signed by
This judgment consists of 16 pages and each page bears my AAYUSHI
AAYUSHI SAXENA
signatures. SAXENA Date:

2025.08.02
15:50:50
+0530
(Aayushi Saxena)
JMFC05/SHD/Karkardooma
Courts/Delhi/02.08.2025

State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25
Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 16 of 16



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here