Delhi District Court
State vs Narender on 14 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Narender etc.
FIR No : 209/2018
U/s : 323/452/506/34 IPC and 30 Arms Act
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020467842021
2. Date of commission of offence : 06.12.2018
3. Date of institution of the case : 24.09.2021
4. Name of the complainant : Inder Singh
5. Name of accused, parentage & : 1. Narender
address S/o Nanak Chand
R/o WZ-933, Shri
Nagar, Rani Bagh,
New Delhi.
2. Pardeep @ Banti
S/o Subhash Chander
R/o VPO Khera Dabar
J. P. Kalan, Delhi.
3. Mahesh
S/o Banwari Lal
R/o H. no.X-605,
Mangolpuri, New
Delhi.
4. Om Prakash
S/o Chuni Lal
R/o H. no.A-325,
Sakurpur, Delhi.
5. Naveen
S/o Subhash Chander
R/o VPO Khera Dabar
J. P. Kalan, Delhi.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 1 of 25 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.14
15:59:12
+0530
6. Rakesh
S/o Subhash Chander
R/o VPO Khera Dabar
J. P. Kalan, Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 323/452/506/34 IPC
and 30 Arms Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 14.05.2025
Argued by:- Mr. Parvez Alam, Ld. APP for the State
Ms. Lalit Kataria, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 06.12.2018 at
about 10:00 pm at VPO Khera Dabar, New Delhi, accused
persons in furtherance of their common intention committed
house tresspass having made preparation of causing hurt to the
complainant Inder Singh and caused simple injuries to the
complainant. Further, accused persons in furtherance of their
common intention caused criminal intimidation to complainant
by threatening the complainant to kill by putting a pistol on his
chest and thereby committed the offences punishable under
Sections 323/452/506/34 of IPC, for which FIR no.209/2018 was
registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 2 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.14
15:59:18
+0530
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
PERSONS
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer
(hereinafter, “IO”) undertook investigation and on culmination of
the same, the chargesheet against the accused persons was filed.
The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the
accused persons and summons were issued to the accused
persons. On their appearance, copy of the chargesheet was
supplied to the accused persons in terms of section 207 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC“). On
finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, charge
under Sections 323/452/506/34 of IPC was framed against all the
accused persons and additional charge under Section 30 Arms
was framed against accused Narender S/o Nanak Chand on
26.04.2022. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and
documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt: –
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW-1 Inder Singh
PW-2 SI Avadh Kishore
PW-3 Retd. SI Shambhu Shah
PW-4 Retd. SI Bhagwan Singh
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant
Ex.PW2/A Notice under Section 41A Cr. P. C. served
upon accused Naveen
Ex.PW2/B Notice under Section 41A Cr. P. C. served
upon accused Rakesh
Ex.PW3/A Tehrir
Digitally
signed by
ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWATFIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 3 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.14
15:59:22
+0530
Ex.PW3/B Site plan
Ex.PW3/C Site plan from where the case property was
recovered
Ex.PW3/D Arrest memo qua accused Om Prakash
Ex.PW3/E Arrest memo qua accused Narender
Ex.PW3/F Arrest memo qua accused Mahesh Kumar
Ex.PW3/G Arrest memo qua accused Pradeep
Ex.PW3/H Personal search memo qua accused Om
Prakash
Ex.PW3/I Personal search memo qua accused Narender
Ex.PW3/J Personal search memo qua accused Mahesh
Kumar
Ex.PW3/K Personal search memo qua accused Pradeep
Ex.PW3/L Disclosure statement qua accused Om
Prakash
Ex.PW3/M Disclosure statement qua accused Narender
Ex.PW3/N Disclosure statement qua accused Mahesh
Kumar
Ex.PW3/O Disclosure statement qua accused Pradeep
Ex.PW3/P Seizure memo qua pistol
Ex.PW3/Q Seizure memo qua five cartridges
Ex.PW3/R Seizure memo qua car bearing no.DL-1CW-
1648
Ex.PW3/S Seizure memo qua arm licence of revolver
Ex.PW3/T Sketch of case property
ADMITTED DOCUMENTS
Ex.A1 FIR no.209/2018 along with certificate u/S
65B of IEA
Ex.A2 DD no.027A dated 06.12.2018
Ex.A3 RC no.25/12/19 dated 21.02.2019
Ex.A4 FSL / Balletic Division Examination result
dated 31.12.2020
Ex.A5 Entry in register no.19
4. Prosecution examined the following witnesses and the same are
as follows:
PW1 Inder Singh (complainant) deposed that he was working in
Delhi Police and taken voluntarily retirement from Delhi Police
and during service, he had sustained several bullet injuries. He
stated that after his treatment, he undergone in depression due toDigitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 4 of 25 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.14
15:59:27
+0530
some more reason and therefore, he might forgot some facts of
the case due to lapses of time. He stated that on 06.12.2018, he
was at his house and at about 08:00 pm, he heard the noise of
music in the vehicle of Monu and Tinku who were resident of his
village. He asked them to not tuned the music at high volume and
thereafter they started abusing him and went from there. He
stated that after some time they came alongwith four persons and
the four persons were in another car and they started abusing
him. He stated that hearing the noise, his nephew Manoj Kumar
came there and some of them slapped Manoj Kumar. He stated
that neighbors gathered and call was made at 100 number but he
did not remember who made the call. He stated that as soon as
neighbors gathered, the said persons ran away from there and
thereafter police came and they came to know about the direction
of accused persons through neighbours. In the meantime, local
police came i.e. SI Shambhu, HC Dharambir, Ct. Shambhu Singh
and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A and arrested the accused
persons. He stated that he was called to identify them, then he
stated that it was night and he was in depression therefore, he
could not identify them. He stated that he came to know through
PCR police officials that a revolver and 5 live cartridges were
recovered. As PW1 resiled from his previous statement, the Ld,
APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of
cross-examination, wherein PW1 stated that the name which he
had mentioned were Monu and Rinku and his niece Manoj called
at 100 number. In the cross-examination, he stated that except
him no one else in the neighbourhood was objecting the accused
person for turning the volume high. He stated that the main road
near his house was a busy road and he came out of his houseDigitally signed
by ABHINAVFIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 5 of 25 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.14
15:59:33
+0530
within 2 minutes after listening the high volume. He stated that
accused Monu and Rinku belonged to extended family.
5. PW2 SI Avadh Kishore deposed that on 17.03.2019, the case file
of the present matter was handed over to him for further
investigation and during investigation he received the FSL report
and put the same on record. He stated that the license of the
revolver had already been verified, hence Section 30 Arms Act
was added to the chargesheet. He interrogated the co-accused
Naveen and served notice U/s 41A Cr.PC upon the accused
persons Naveen and Rakesh Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. He
stated that as the material investigation had already been
concluded, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before
the Court for adjudication. The witness correctly identified
accused Naveen and Rakesh present in the court.
6. PW3 Retd. SI Shambhu Shah deposed that in the intervening
night of 06/07.12.2018, he was on night emergency duty at PS
alongwith HC Dharamvir and on that day, he received DD
no.27A. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Dharamvir went to the spot
and after reaching the spot, he met complainant Inder Singh who
stated that the PCR van chasing the accused persons who ran
away from the spot. He stated that he and HC Dharamvir left the
spot and reached at Ghumenhera Asalatpur Khurd where he met
with PCR staff ASI Bhagwan Singh and driver Pradeep, who
apprehended accused persons. After reaching the spot, ASI
Bhagwan Singh handed over to him custody of accused persons
and one revolver which was recovered from the possession of
accused and which was used by the accused persons for
committing present case offence. He stated that five live
cartridges had also handed over to him by ASI Bhagwan Singh
Digitally
signed by
ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 6 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.14
15:59:37
+0530
which were also recovered from accused persons and thereafter,
they left the spot and reached at the house of complainant Inder
Singh, where he recorded the statement of complainant, on the
basis of which, he prepared tehrir Ex.PW3/A and got the FIR
registered through HC Dharamvir. He stated that during
investigation, he prepared the site plan at the instance of
complainant Inder Singh Ex.PW3/B and also prepared the site
plan (place from where the case property was recovered from the
accused persons) Ex.PW3/C. He stated that he arrested accused
persons, Om Prakash, Narender, Mahesh Kumar and Pradeep
vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F and
Ex.PW3/G, conducted personal search of abovesaid accused
persons vide personal search memo Ex.PW3/H, Ex.PW3/I,
Ex.PW3/J and Ex.PW3/K and also recorded disclosure
statements of abovesaid accused persons vide Ex.PW3/L,
Ex.PW3/M, Ex.PW3/N and Ex.PW3/O. He stated that during
investigation, he also seized the revolver which was recovered
from the possession of accused Pradeep vide seizure memo
Ex.PW3/P, seized five live cartridges which were recovered from
the possession of accused Pradeep vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/Q
and also seized the Creta car bearing no.DL-1CW-1648 which
was used by the accused persons during committing the offence
vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/R. He stated that he also seized the
original arm licence of the revolver from accused Narender
Malik which was used in the present case offence vide Ex.PW3/S
and also prepared the sketch of the case property (revolver and
live cartridges) Ex.PW3/T (colly). Thereafter, they left the spot
and reached at PS and after reaching PS, he deposited the case
property in malkhana and accused persons were also examined in
RTRM Hospital. Thereafter, he produced the accused persons
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 7 of 25 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.14
15:59:41
+0530
before the concerned court and concerned court sent them to
judicial custody. He also filled FSL form at the spot and sent the
case property to FSL. The witness correctly identified the
accused persons present before the court, revolver as Ex.P1, two
live and three empty carriages as Ex.P2. In the cross-
examination, he stated that he did not record the statement of any
public person except Inder Singh and he did not apprehend the
accused persons and accused persons were apprehended by PCR
staff and thereafter handed over to him. He stated that the
recovery of the case property i.e. revolver and live cartridges
were not occurred in his presence from accused persons as the
same was recovered by PCR staff. He stated that when he
reached at the spot first, he did not record statement of any public
person/ neighbour of accused. No CCTV camera was installed
there and during investigation, no evidence was found against the
accused persons as they committed the said offence except the
statement of complainant. He stated that he reached at the spot in
ERV vehicle. He did not verify the armed licence of the
abovesaid case property which was issued in the name of
Narender. He arrested the accused persons at the instance of PCR
staff as PCR staff apprehended the accused persons and
thereafter they handed over the custody of accused persons and
case property to him and thereafter, he arrested the accused
persons. He stated that during the investigation no evidence was
found against the accused that they were threatening the
complainant and forcefully entered into the house of complainant
except the statement of complainant.
7. PW4 Retd. SI Bhagwan Singh deposed that on 06/07.12.2018, he
alongwith Ct. Pradeep was on night duty PCR on Crystal-73
Daurala Mor and on that night, he received a call regarding fight
Digitally signed
by ABHINAVFIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 8 of 25 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.14
15:59:46
+0530
and gun shot and information regarding one car bearing no.DL-
1CW-1648 in which few persons ran away after the fight,
thereafter, when they were going to the spot in PCR i.e. Village
Khera Dabar and when they reached near Ghumanhera, they saw
that same car i.e. DL-1CW-1648 coming towards them.
Thereafter, they chased the said car and apprehended them at
Asalatpur Road, Ghumanhera. He stated that after checking the
car, there were four persons, whose name he came to know as
Pradeep, Mahesh, Om Prakash and Narender and on their
personal search, one revolver and five live cartridges were found
from the possession of accused Pradeep. He stated that in
between other police officials and complainant came to the spot
where accused persons were apprehended by him. He stated that
IO prepared sketch of revolver and live cartridges in his presence
and seized the same and seized car bearing no.DL-1CW-1648.
He stated that IO SI Shambhu arrested the accused persons in his
presence and conducted their personal search. The witness
correctly identified the accused persons present in the court and
the case property. In the cross-examination, he stated that at the
time of call, his position was at Village Daurala alongwith driver
Ct. Pradeep. He stated that they had chased and stopped the
offending vehicle and the accused was going from Delhi towards
Haryana border. IO had reached the spot within about five
minutes and prepared a site plan on the spot. He stated that IO
had asked about the direction of offending vehicle but he did not
know if IO had asked any public person to join the investigation
while arresting the accused persons. He did not know if IO had
clicked the photographs of the offending vehicle and recovered
weapon. He stated that IO had interrogated the accused Pradeep
about the licence of weapon recovered from his possession. He
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 9 of 25 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.14
15:59:51
+0530
stated that he remained at the spot for about 30 minutes and IO
had prepared documents pertaining to the investigation at the
spot. IO had also recorded statement of complainant at the spot in
his presence. All the documents were prepared by the IO while
standing at the spot. He stated that IO had not put any
identification mark on the recovered weapon and bullets before
seizing them.
8. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.PC, remaining
witnesses in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal
proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was
dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined; hence, PE
was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
9. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow
the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating
circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statements
of the accused persons were recorded on 07.01.2025 without oath
under section 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC, wherein all the accused persons
except accused Narender stated that they were not present at the
spot and they were falsely implicated in the present case.
Accused Narender stated that he was also not present at the spot
and he possessed a valid arms licence for his revolver which was
recovered from him by a PCR when he was going towards his
house. He further stated that he had not used the said arm against
the complainant. All the accused persons stated that they did not
want to lead defence evidence.
Digitally
signed by
ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 10 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.14
15:59:57
+0530
ARGUMENTS
10. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the
accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration
to the material appearing on record.
11. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of
the offences are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that
prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the
commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their
testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence
has proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is
prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said
offences.
12. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued
that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable
doubt. The Ld. Counsel for accused further argued that the entire
case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is
evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions
borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the
prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As
such, it is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted for the
said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
The provisions for which accused persons are charged are as
follows:
Section 321 IPC defines -Voluntarily causing hurt as, whoever
does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any
person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause
hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is
said “voluntarily to cause hurt”. Section 323 provides for the
punishment for causing voluntarily causing hurt.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 11 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.14
16:00:02
+0530
Section 452 IPC defines – Whoever commits a house-trespass,
after doing some groundwork and preparation to hurt or attack
an individual or to wrongfully restrain them, thereby causing
assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of maximum 7
years and/or fine.
Section 506 IPC defines – Punishment for criminal intimidation.
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If
threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.
Section 30 Arms Act defines – If someone breaks any rule or
condition of a gun license, or any part of the Arms Act, or any
regulations made under the Act, and if there’s no specific
punishment mentioned for it elsewhere in the Act, then that
person can be sent to jail for up to six months, fined up to 2000
rupees, or both.
13. The allegations levelled against accused persons are segregated
into two parts. Firstly, all the accused persons are charged under
Section 452/323/506/34 IPC with the allegation that on the date
of incident, they criminally trespassed into the house of
complainant Inder Singh and caused simple injuries to the
complainant and also criminally intimidated him. The second
allegation is against accused Narender only qua offence under
Section 30 Arms Act.
14. Let us deal with the first set of allegations against all the accused
persons qua offence under Sections 452/323/506/34 IPC.
15. At the outset, the entire narrative of prosecution hinges on the
testimony of complainant PW1 only as the witnesses PW2, PW3
and PW4 are police officials who investigated the present matter.
PW1 complainant Inder Singh stated that on the date of incident
i.e. 06.12.2018 at about 08:00 pm, he was at his house and he
heard noise of loud music coming from the vehicle of Monu and
Tinku who were resident of his village who were in their Wagon
R and when he asked them not to play music at high volume,
they both started abusing him and went from there. PW1 further
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 12 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.14
16:00:08
+0530
stated that after some time they both came alongwith four
persons in another car came there and they all started abusing
him. PW1 further stated that upon hearing the noise, his nephew
Manoj Kumar came there and some of the persons present there
slapped Manoj Kumar. PW1 further stated that thereafter, some
neighbours gathered and call was made to police. PW1 further
stated that as soon as neighbours gathered, the said persons ran
away from the spot. PW1 further stated that PCR van came at the
spot whereafter SI Shambhu Shah recorded his statement
Ex.PW1/A. PW1 categorically stated that he could not identify
the accused persons as he was in a state of depression after taking
voluntary retirement from his police service. PW1 further stated
that he came to know through PCR police officials that one
revolver and 5 live cartridges were recovered. PW1 categorically
also stated when police inquired from him whether any fire arms
were fired upon his house to which he told police officials that no
fire arms were fired.
As the complainant failed to support the prosecution case
on material points, Ld. APP sought permission to cross-examine
him and in the said cross-examination PW1 admitted that the
complaint Ex.PW1/A had his signatures but he stated that he was
suffering from depression when he moved the said complaint.
PW1 further stated that two of the accused persons present in the
Court were Monu and Rinku. PW1 denied all the suggestion
stating that accused persons had come in Creta car bearing
no.DL-1CW-1648 to which PW1 stated that it was not creta but
Wagon R car.
16. Before proceeding to appreciate testimony of PW1 it is important
to highlight that PW1 stated that his nephew Manoj Kumar came
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 13 of 25 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.14
16:00:15
+0530
there when four persons were abusing him. Perusal of the case
record reveals that no PW by the name of Manoj Kumar was
cited as witness in the prosecution witness list. Further during the
course of trial, Ld. APP had moved an application u/S 311 Cr. P.
C. alongwith copy of one MLC of Manoj stating that evidence of
said Manoj Kumar was relevant being one of the injured eye
witness whereby the said application u/S 311 Cr. P. C. was
allowed vide order dated 28.03.2023. However, statement u/S
161 Cr. P. C. of said PW Manoj Kumar was not found on record
nor the MLC as filed by Ld. APP alongwith the said application
was found on the record or in the police file. Accordingly, both
the IOs SI Avadh Kishore and SI Shambhu Shah were called for
clarifications and SI Avadh Kishore stated that no
record/statement qua Manoj Kumar were found in VRK record.
Also, SI Shambhu Shah stated that during investigation he had
not recorded any statement u/S 161 Cr. P. C. of PW Manoj. Here
it is also pertinent to highlight that even the MLC of PW1 is also
not on record. Thereby after seeking clarification from both the
IOs vide order dated 12.03.2024, PW Manoj Kumar was finally
dropped as a prosecution witness as prosecution had not sought
further issuance of process for securing the presence of said PW
to be examined as either Court witness as no material/ document
qua his involvement in the present case was found. Additionally,
even the testimony of PW1/ complainant is also not supporting
the prosecution case in toto. Thereby apart from the testimony of
PW,1 there is no other independent witness to corroborate the
testimony of PW1 or to establish that the incident as alleged
occurred involving the accused persons. Moreover, perusal of the
testimony of PW1 reveals that he had not been able to
categorically identify all the accused persons and he only stated
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 14 of 25 ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
Date:
2025.05.14
16:00:22
+0530
that the name of two persons as Monu and Rinku. Furthermore,
as PW1 has categorically admitted that no fire arms were fired at
his residence nor there is averment in the testimony of PW1
regarding any of accused persons trespassing into his premises.
17. Furthermore, before proceeding ahead, it is relevant to see as to
how the criminal law was set into motion in the present case. As
per PW4 Retired SI Bhagwan Singh, who stated that on the date
of incident he alongwith Ct. Pradeep were on PCR duty at
Daurala Mor and when he received a call regarding fight and gun
shot from one car bearing no. DL-1CW-1648 whereafter, they
went to the spot at Village Khera Dabar. Perusal of DD no.27A
dated 06.12.2018 time 23:22 hours Ex.A2 reveals that
information was received regarding heavy jhagra bahar ke ladke
aaye hain Khera Dabar jinke paas hathiyar hain car no.DL-1CL-
1648 Creta gadi fire karke bhagi hai. As per said DD entry, PW4
went at the spot who stated that when he reached near
Ghumanhera, he saw said car i.e. DL-1CW-1648 coming towards
them when he chased the said vehicle and apprehended them. He
further stated that upon checking the said car, there were four
persons, namely Pradeep, Mahesh, Om Prakash and Narender
were found in the said vehicle and one revolver and five live
cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused
Pradeep. Interestingly, as per the seizure memo of the vehicle
bearing no. DL-1CW-1648 Ex.PW3/R which reveals that the
same was seized by the police official. As per the seizure memo,
the vehicle was seized but no details in the form of RC of the
vehicle and issuance of notice u/S 133 MV Act was issued upon
the owner of said vehicle no. DL-1CW-1648. Since there is no
RC on record, there is no material to verify the make, model of
the said vehicle as per DD entry Ex.A2, vehicle was stated to be
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 15 of 25 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.14
16:00:28
+0530
with the registration no. DL-1CL-1648 Creta vehicle. Both the
IOS PW3 and PW4 have failed to undertake the investigation
regarding the owner/ make model of the said vehicle. Even
complainant PW1 had stated that four persons had came in
Wagon R car thereby absence of any registration certificate of the
vehicle seized makes it difficult to ascertain the details of said
seized vehicle. No reason is forthcoming from the IO for non-
recovery of RC of the vehicle seized. Apart from PW1 there is no
other eye-witness to the incident. PW3 and PW4 went to the spot
of incident who had apparently seized the vehicle bearing no.
DL-1CW-1648. As already stated by PW1 no fire arm was fired
at his house nor he made any categorical imputation against
accused persons that they had criminally trespassed into his
premises. This cast a fatal blow to the case of prosecution as
there is no other evidence, either ocular or documentary, direct or
circumstantial, on record to even remotely indicate the
involvement of accused persons in the alleged incident. As, also
to be highlighted that PW1 stated that he had forgotten some fact
due to lapse of time due to the fact that he is suffering from
depression. Testimony of PW1 does not satisfy the ingredients of
Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC and the said allegations against the
accused persons are not satisfactorily made out. The upshot of
the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs is that neither the
prosecution has brought any direct evidence nor such chain of
circumstances as would point to an irresistible conclusion that the
accused persons committed house trespass into the house of
complainant Inder Singh whereby they caused simple injuries to
complainant and criminally intimidated him. There is not even
an iota of evidence on record to prove the charges against the
accused persons. As a sequitur thereto, the accused persons stand
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 16 of 25 ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
Date:
2025.05.14
16:00:33
+0530
entitled to benefit of doubt qua offence under Section
323/452/506/34 IPC.
18. The second set of allegations which is against accused Narender
only is qua offence under Section 30 Arms Act. The provision of
Section 30 of Arms Act reads as under:
Punishment For Contravention Of Licence or Rule – Whoever
contravenes any condition of a licence or any provision of this
Act or any rule made thereunder, for which no punishment is
provided elsewhere in this Act shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months.
19. In the instant case, counsel for accused has argued that the
prosecution case is marred with inconsistencies and
contradictions borne out of the material on record. Ld. Counsel
for accused further stated that accused Narender was possessing
valid arm licence valid for territory of Delhi and that despite the
same he was deliberately implicated in the present case despite
no wrongdoing on his part.
20. After perusing the testimonies of all PWs as discussed in the
preceding paragraphs and other materials available on record,
this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of accused Narender beyond reasonable
doubt for having committed the offence punishable u/s 30 Arms
Act due to the following reasons.
21. Firstly, as per the case of prosecution, after receiving the PCR call
as made by complainant PW1, PW4 Retd. SI Bhagwan Singh
went to the spot in PCR and he saw one car i.e. DL-1CW-1648
coming towards the PCR. PW4 stated that thereafter, he chased
the said car and apprehended the occupants of the said car near
Asalatpur Road, Ghumanhera. Upon checking the occupants of
the said car, he came to know their names as Pradeep, Mahesh,
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 17 of 25
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.14
16:00:39
+0530
Om Prakash and Narender. PW4 further stated that upon personal
search of accused Pradeep, he found one revolver and five live
cartridges from his possession. Whereafter other police officials
came at the spot. PW3 Retired SI Shambhu Shah stated in his
testimony that he mat the PCR staff SI Bhagwan Singh who
apprehended accused persons. Whereafter custody of accused
persons and revolver was handed over to him alongwith five live
cartridges. PW3 also stated that revolver as recovered from the
possession of accused Pradeep was seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW3/P. Therefore, it is the specific case of prosecution that
the said revolver and live cartridges found in possession of
Pradeep. Both PW3 and PW4 stated in their cross-examination
that no public persons were made to join the investigation at the
time of arrest of accused persons. Interestingly, PW3 admitted in
his cross-examination that during investigation no evidence was
found against the accused persons that they were threatening the
complainant and had forcefully entered into his house.
22. Before proceeding ahead, it is worthwhile to mention that the
seized revolver alongwith five live cartridges were found to be
pertaining to the arms licence of accused Narender. Whereafter
original arms licence of Narender was seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW3/S. Perusal of the arm licence of accused Narender
reveals that the same is valid till 14.04.2018 within the territory
of Delhi only and the maximum amount of ammunition allowed
to be possessed at one time being 25. Furthermore, the said arm
licence was renewed till 14.04.2019. As per the case of
prosecution, the alleged incident is of 06.12.2018 thereby the said
arm and ammunition as allegedly recovered was pertaining to the
arm licence of accused Narender and was valid on the date of
alleged incident. Furthermore, prosecution has not been able to
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 18 of 25 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.14
16:00:44
+0530
establish how it was recovered from the possession of accused
Pardeep as accused Narender alongwith accused Pradeep in
whose favour the arm licence was issued and other two person
were travelling in the vehicle chased by the PCR van.
23. Secondly, it is a well settled proposition of law that non joining
of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the
investigation by the police. Section 100(4) of the Cr.PC also casts
a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two
respectable persons of the society. Therefore, it was incumbent
on the part of IO to join the public persons in the investigation of
the case but surprisingly, no such person was associated in the
investigation for the reasons unexplained. In the present case, the
testimony of all PWs reflects that the team of police personals
remained present at the spot for considerable period of time but
no sincere effort appears to have been made by the IO to join the
independent public persons in the investigation proceedings
during such time. If the public persons refused to join the
investigation as stated in chargesheet, IO was having remedies
available in law to proceed against said public persons but such
course has not been adopted by the IO for the reasons best known
to him.
24. In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi V/s 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
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Page 19 of 25
Date:
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. AHLAWAT 2025.05.14
16:00:49
+0530
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.”
25. While the testimony of the police officials cannot be discarded
away merely because of the fact that no public witnesses were
not examined, however, their testimonies should be scrutinised in
more detail. If it is found the police officials during the course of
investigation did not even make endeavour to ask the public
witnesses to join the investigation, did not even ask their names
and details etc. then it would cast a very serious doubt on the
testimonies of the police officials. At this stage, reference can be
taken from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Tahir v. State (Delhi) [(1996) 3 SCC 338], dealing with a
similar question, the Hon’ble Apex Court held interalia the
following:
“In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the
police officials, merely because they belong to the police force
and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that
conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police
officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some
independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only
requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can
be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by
them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful
scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and
reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some
independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their
evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the
prosecution case. The obvious result of the above discussion is
that the statement of a police officer can be relied upon and even
form the basis of conviction when it is reliable, trustworthy and
preferably corroborated by other evidence on record.”
26. The requirement of the police officials to make endeavour to ask
the public witnesses to join the proceedings was discussed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Singh vs. State of
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 20 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.14
16:00:55
+0530
Punjab AIR 1997 SC 2417, wherein it interalia held the
following:
“In a given case it may so happen that no such person is
available or, even if available, is not willing to be a party to
such search. It may also be that after joining the search, such
persons later on turn hostile. In any of these eventualities the
evidence of the police officers who conducted the search cannot
be disbelieved solely on the ground that no independent and
respectable witness was examined to prove the search but if it is
found -as in the present case -that no attempt was even made by
the concerned police officer to join with him some persons of
the locality who were admittedly available to witness the
recovery, it would affect the weight of evidence of the Police
Officer, though not its admissibility.”
27. Similar observation was made by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana
High Court in the case of Roop Chand vs. State of Haryana 1999
(1) CLR 69, wherein the Hon’ble Court while discussing the role
of public witnesses in criminal investigation, had interalia held
the following:
“4. 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. 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 investigation
officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had
it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused 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 public is
an afterthought and is not worth credence. All these facts taken
together make the prosecution case highly doubtful.”
28. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep
Narayan Madgaonkar v. State of Maharashtra (1995) 4 SCC 255
dealt with the issue of the requirement of the examination of an
independent witness, and whether the evidence of a police wit-
ness requires corroboration. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 21 of 25 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.14
16:00:59
+0530
though the same must be subject to strict scrutiny, however, the
evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the
ground that they belong to the police force and are either inter-
ested in the investigation or in the prosecution. However, as far
as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material partic-
ulars should be sought.
Therefore, in view of the above-mentioned case law, it
becomes clear that while the testimony of the police officials
cannot be discarded away forthwith in the absence of any public
witnesses, however, it would be prudent to examine or scrutinise
their testimonies more closely and should preferably be
corroborated. Accused may be convicted on the basis of the
testimonies of the police officials if their testimonies are found to
be reliable and trustworthy.
29. In the instant case, from the testimonies of all PWs being part of
the recovery proceedings, no such effort is seen from the police
party to join the independent witness. Despite the fact that all the
police officials stating that alleged arm was recovered from ac-
cused Pradeep. Although the original arm licencee namely ac-
cused Narender was sitting with accused Pradeep in the same ve-
hicle. No sincere efforts were made by the police to join the pub-
lic persons. Since all the witnesses are police officials and neces-
sary safeguard in the investigation has not been followed by the
IO, false implication of accused persons cannot be ruled out. As
already discussed in the preceding paragraphs that accused
Narender possessed valid arm licence alongwith cartridges in
question, prosecution was under obligation to prove that accused
Narender had the necessary intention or knowledge of the wrong-
doing for conviction for offence under Section 30 Arms Act
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 22 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.14
16:01:05
+0530
30. Apart from the deficiencies in the prosecution case as discussed
above, nothing has been brought by the prosecution to prove
regarding the necessary mens rea of the accused. In the present
case, accused has not led any defence evidence and his only
version has come when his statement under section 313 Cr.PC
was recorded wherein he had stated that he possessed a valid
license for his revolver and the same was recovered from him
when he was going towards his house by PCR vehicle.
31. It is pertinent to mention here that statement of accused recorded
us 313 CrPC are not substantive piece of evidence, as held by the
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sumeti Vij vs Paramount
Tec Feb Industries (CRA 292/2021) LL 2021 SC 149,
” The statement of the accused recorded under 313 of the Code
is not a substantive evidence of defence, but only an opportunity
to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstance
appearing in the prosecution case of the accused.
32. As already stated that accused Narender was possessing arm li-
cence which was valid for the territory of Delhi on the date of al-
leged incident. Therefore, the prosecution had to prove the neces-
sary mens rea. Neither the complainant has stated any fire arm
was fired at his house nor any recovery of arm has been satisfac-
torily explained.
33. On the basis of the above, the explanation tendered by the
accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code that he
has been falsely implicated appears to be more plausible than the
version of the prosecution. It is settled proposition of criminal
law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing
evidence. The prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 23 of 25 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.14
16:01:10
+0530
and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses,
if any, in the defence of the accused. In the instant matter,
prosecution has not been able to establish the conscious
possession of the revolver with its cartridges which accused
Narender was possessing being a licensed arm. There is nothing
on record to suggest that while traveling from one place to other
accused used the revolver in a threatening or unlawful manner.
34. The most crucial aspect for proving the offence under section 30
Arms Act, is that one of the conditions of license being violated,
and in the present case, it is the case of the prosecution that
accused Pradeep was found in possession revolver and the five
cartridges although he was with accused Narender who was
possessing the valid license for the same. Prosecution has not
been able to establish as to how the conditions of the license were
violated. Further, needless to reiterate that, mere possession of
arms in violation of the license rules won’t make the person
liable without proving the factum of possession with the
necessary mens rea or intention. Accordingly, the accused
Narender is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in
the prosecution story.
Conclusion
35. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution
evidence, both oral and documentary, including the surrounding
circumstances leads to the only conclusion that prosecution failed
in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused
persons and benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused
persons. Accordingly, accused persons 1. Narender S/o Nanak
Chand, 2. Pardeep @ Banti S/o Subhash Chander, 3. Mahesh S/o
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 24 of 25 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.14
16:01:15
+0530
Banwari Lal, 4. Om Prakash S/o Chuni Lal, 5. Naveen S/o
Subhash Chander and 6. Rakesh S/o Subhash Chander are held
not guilty and hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under
Sections 323/452/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Further,
accused Narender is held not guilty and hereby acquitted of the
offence punishable under Section 30 Arms Act.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
on 14.05.2025 in the presence AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.14
of the accused persons.
16:01:20 +0530
(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/14.05.2025This judgment contains 25 pages and each page has been signed
by me. Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.14
16:01:25 +0530(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/14.05.2025FIR No.209/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Narender etc. Page 25 of 25