[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
State vs Sayed Saud Hasan@Bilal Hasan on 12 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY : MS. SAYESHA CHADHA, DJS
FIR No. 261/20
PS : Chandni Mahal
U/s 25 Arms Act
State vs. Sayed Saud
Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
Date of Institution of case: 07.01.2021
Date when Judgment reserved: 27.06.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 12.07.2025
JUDGMENT
A. Case No. : 280/2021
B. Date of Institution of Case : 07.01.2021
C. Date of Commission of Offence : 06.08.2020
D. Name of the complainant : Ct. Devender
E. Name of the Accused : Sayed Saud Hasan @
& his parentage and residence Bilal Hasan s/o Sh Sayed
Mansoor Hasan, R/o
H.No.3191, Kucha
Tarachand, Daryaganj,
Delhi.
F. Offences complained of : U/s 25 Arms Act
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final order : Acquittal
I. Date of such order : 12.07.2025
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE
CASE:
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
1/19
1. Breifly stated that on 06.08.2020, at 8.35 pm, behind
Pathan Wali Masjid, near Patli Gali, Suiwalan, Daryaganj, Delhi,
falling within the jurisdiction of PS Chandni Mahal, accused was
found in possession of one buttondar knife without any license or
permit in contravention of DAD notification of GNCT of Delhi
and thereby accused committed an offence punishable U/s. 25
Arms Act.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer
(hereinafter, “IO”) undertook investigation and on culmination of
the same, charge-sheet against the accused was filed. After taking
cognizance of the offence.
3. On his appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was supplied to
the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC“). On finding a prima facie
case against the accused, charge under sections 25 Arms Act was
framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE-
4. Thereafter, the prosecution was given the opportunity to
substantiate the allegations against the accused. The prosecution
examined 4 (four) witnesses in support of its case:
5. PW-1 HC Devender has deposed that on 06.08.2020, he
alongwith Ct. Kuldeep was on patrolling duty vide DD no. 72A.
On that day, during patrolling, at about 8:35 pm when they
reached at Suiwalan chowk, they saw one person coming from
Chitli qabar market side towards them and on seeing them in
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
2/19
uniform turned around and start moving hastily in opposite
direction. On suspicion, they chased the accused and
apprehended him and on enquiry, his name was revealed as
Sayed Saud Hasan@Bilal Hasan. Thereafter, he requested 3 to 4
public persons to join the investigation but all of them refused
and left the spot without disclosing their name and addresses.
Due to paucity of time, no notice was served upon them.
Thereafter, cursory search of the accused was conducted and one
buttondar knife was recovered from the right pocket of the pants
of the accused. The accused was having injury marks on his face
and was also having bandage on his head. On enquiring about the
injury marks, the accused told that on 05.08.2020 one person
namely Shakib@Totla had beaten him near Jama Masjid. He
informed about the incident to the duty officer and after
sometime IO/HC Devdas alongwith HC Subhash came at the
spot. They handed over the custody of the accused alongwith
buttondar knife to the IO and he narrated him the whole incident.
IO recorded his statement Ex.PW-1/A bearing his signature at
point A. Thereafter, IO prepared the sketch memo of the
buttondar knife by putting the same on white paper Ex.PW-1/B
bearing his signature at point A. The total length of knife was 23
cm and the length of butt was 12.5 cm and width of blade was
2.5 cm having a button on the handle of knife and the length of
the blade was 10.5 cm. Thereafter, IO put the knife in the white
cloth and prepared pullanda and sealed it with the seal
CHMHLII. The seal after use was handed over to HC Subhash.
Thereafter, IO prepared the seizure memo of the case property
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
3/19
Ex.PW-1/C bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, IO
prepared the tehrir / rukka and handed over the same to HC
Subhash for the registration of the FIR at about 10:55 pm. After
registration of the FIR, HC Subhash came back at the spot and
handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir / rukka to IO.
Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan of the spot at our instance
Ex.PW-1/D bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, IO
arrested the accused, carried out his personal search and recorded
his disclosure statement vide memos Ex. PW-1/E, PW-1/F, and
PW-1/G, all bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, the
accused was got medically examined at Lady Hardinge Hospital
by HC Subhash and Ct. Kuldeep and he alongwith IO came back
at the PS and IO deposited the case property in the malkhana.
After medical examination, the accused was put behind the bars
in the lockup of the PS. Thereafter, IO recorded his
supplementary statement U/s 161 CrPC and he was discharged.
he has correctly identified the accused. He has also correctly
identified the case property i.e., the buttondar knife Ex.P-1 as the
one which was seized from the possession of the accused on the
date of incident.
6. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that when they
apprehended the accused, 10 to 12 public persons gathered at the
spot. He admitted that the spot was crowded and surrounded by
the shops. IO had not served any notice to any public person to
join the investigation in the present case in his presence. He
offered his search to the accused but he refused to search him. He
admitted that the accused was having injury marks. He admitted
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
4/19
that the accused told them that he received the injuries by the
beatings of the person namely Shakib@Totla. He denied that the
accused when visited the PS to enquire his complaint dt.
05.08.2020, the IO falsely implicated him in the present case and
the case property was planted upon the accused. He denied that
nothing was recovered from the accused and no such incident
took place. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
7. PW-2 HC Kuldeep has deposed that on 06.08.2020, he
alongwith Ct. Devender was on patrolling duty vide DD no. 72A.
On that day, during patrolling, at about 8:35 pm when they
reached at Suiwalan chowk, they saw one person coming from
Chitli qabar market side towards them and on seeing them in
uniform, he turned around and start moving hastily in opposite
direction. On suspicion, they chased the accused and
apprehended him and on enquiry, his name was revealed as
Sayed Saud Hasan@Bilal Hasan. Thereafter, Ct. Devender
requested 3 to 4 public persons to join the investigation but all of
them refused and left the spot without disclosing their name and
addresses. Due to paucity of time, no notice was served upon
them. Thereafter, cursory search of the accused was conducted
and one buttondar knife was recovered from the right pocket of
the pants of the accused. The accused was having injury marks
on his face and was also having bandage on his head. On
enquiring about the injury marks, the accused told that on
05.08.2020, one person namely Shakib@Totla had beaten him
near Jama Masjid. Thereafter, Ct. Devender informed about the
incident to the duty officer and after sometime IO/HC Devdas
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
5/19
alongwith HC Subhash came at the spot. They handed over the
custody of the accused alongwith buttondar knife to the IO and
Ct. Devender narrated him the whole incident. IO recorded his
statement Ex.PW-1/A. Thereafter, IO prepared the sketch memo
of the buttondar knife by putting the same on white paper
Ex.PW-1/B bearing his signature at point B. The total length of
knife was 23 cm and the length of butt was 12.5 cm and width of
blade was 2.5 cm having a button on the handle of knife and the
length of the blade was 10.5 cm. Thereafter, IO put the knife in
the white cloth and prepared pullanda and sealed it with the seal
CHMHLII. The seal after use was handed over to HC Subhash.
Thereafter, IO prepared the seizure memo of the case property
Ex.PW-1/C bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, IO
prepared the tehrir / rukka and handed over the same to HC
Subhash for the registration of the FIR at about 10:55 pm. After
registration of the FIR, HC Subhash came back at the spot and
handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir / rukka to IO.
Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan of the spot at our instance
Ex.PW-1/D bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, IO
arrested the accused, carried out his personal search and recorded
his disclosure statement vide memos Ex. PW-1/E, PW-1/F, and
PW-1/G, all bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, he and
HC Subhash took the accused to Lady Hardinge Hospital and
was got medically examined. After medical examination, they
came back at the PS and the accused was put behind the bars in
the lockup of the PS. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement and
he was discharged. He has correctly identified you. He has also
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
6/19
correctly identified the case property i.e., the buttondar knife
Ex.P1 as the one which was seized from the possession of the
accused on the date of incident.
8. During cross-examination, PW-2 stated that when they
apprehended the accused, 10 to 15 public persons gathered at the
spot. He admitted that the spot crowded and was surrounded by
the shops. IO had not served any notice to any public person to
join the investigation in the present case in his presence. He
offered his search to the accused but he refused to search him. He
admitted that the accused was having injury marks. He admitted
that the accused told them that he received the injuries by the
beatings of the person namely Shakib@Totla. IO had prepared
the sketch memo with the pen without the help of scale. He
denied that the accused when visited the PS to enquire his
complaint dated 05.08.2020, the IO falsely implicated him in the
present case and the case property was planted upon the accused.
He denied that nothing was recovered from the accused and no
such incident took place. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
9. PW-3 HC Subhash has deposed that on 06.08.2020, IO HC
Devdas received DD No.78A regarding apprehension of a person
with illicit Knife. Thereafter, he alongwith IO went to the spot
near Pathan Wali Masjid, Suiwalan where they met with Ct.
Kuldeep and Ct. Devender. Thereafter, they hadned over the
accused and case property to the IO. IO interrogated the accused
and his name was revealed as Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasna.
Thereafter, IO requested to 4-5 persons to join the investigation
but all are refused to do so. Thereafter IO sent me to the PS for
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
7/19
taking govt seal. After sometime, he returned back to the spot
and handed over the seal to the IO after that he prepared the
sketch of Knife Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point C.
After that IO sealed the knife in a white cloth with the seal of
CHMHLII. IO also seized the buttondar knife vide memo PW1/C
bearing his signature at point C. After that IO prepared the tehrir
and sent me to the PS for the registration of FIR. After
registration of FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and original
tehrir to the IO. After that IO arrested the accused vide memo
Ex.PW1/E bearing his signature at point C. Thereafter IO
conduct the personal search vide memo vide memo PW1/F
bearing his signature at point C. IO recorded the disclosure
statement of the accused vide memo Ex.PW1/G bearing his
signature at point C. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of
Ct. Devender vide memo Ex.PW1/D bearing his signature at
point C. They took the accused to the lady harding Hospital for
medical examination after that they took the accused at PS. IO
recorded his statement of u/s 161 CrPC. He has correctly
identified the accused. It was observed that the case property
exhibited as Ex-P-1 in the testimony of PW1 and PW2.
10. During cross-examination, PW-3 stated that he reached the
spot with the IO at 9.00 pm. Accused alongwith Ct. Devender
and Ct Kuldeep were present. search of the accused was
conducted in his presnece one wrist watch and Key Chain of
motorcycle. On the seizure memo firstly Ct. Devender sign the
memo thereafter he signed the memo. He took the rukka for
registration the case it took hardly 40 minutes. No alleged knife
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
8/19
was recovered from the accused in his presence. he did not
remember what was written in the DD entry. He admitted that the
place of incident was a public place and having heavy moment
and having shops but most of the shops are opened and rest of the
closed. No written notice was given to the shopkeepers and the
pedestrians to join the investigation. He denied that the lot of
people gathered at the place of the incident. IO has done the case
work when he gone to registration of the case. No addition or
alteration were made in the case file by the IO when he returned
at the PS. He did not remember the accused was sustained
injuries on his head. He alongwith Ct. Kuldeep took the hospital
for medical examination. He denied that accused falsely
implicated in the case as the accused was BC. He denied that no
knife has been recovered from the accused. He denied that he
was deposing falsely.
11. PW-4 ASI Dev Das has deposed that on 06.08.2020, he
was posted as HC at PS Chandni Mahal on that day, he received
DD No.78A regarding apprehension of a person with illicit
Knife. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Subhash he went to the spot
near Pathan Wali Masjid, Suiwalan where they met with Ct.
Kuldeep and Ct. Devender. Thereafter, they hadned over the
accused and case property to him. He interrogated the accused
and his name was revealed as Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasna.
Thereafter, he requested to 4-5 persons to join the investigation
but all are refused to do so. He sent HC Subhash to the PS for
taking govt seal. After sometime, HC Subhash returned back to
the spot and handed over the seal to him after that he prepared
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
9/19
the sketch of Knife Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point D.
after that he sealed the knife in a white cloth with the seal of
CHMHLII. He also seized the buttondar knife vide memo
already PW1/C bearing his signature at point D. After that he
prepared the tehrir and sent HC Subhash to the PS for the
registration of FIR. After registration of FIR HC Subhash handed
over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to him. After that he
arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW1/E bearing his signature
at point D. He conduct the personal search vide memo vide
memo PW1/F bearing his signature at point D. He recorded the
disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex.PW1/G
bearing his signature at point D. He prepared the site plan at the
instance of Ct. Devender vide memo Ex.PW1/D bearing his
signature at point D. Thereafter, HC Subhash and Ct. Kuldeep
took the accused to the lady harding Hospital for medical
examination after that they took the accused at PS. He recorded
his statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. He has correctly
identified the accused. It was observed that the case property
exhibited as Ex-P-1 in the testimony of PW1 and PW2.
12. During cross-examination, PW-4 denied that that prior to
day of incident accused lodged his personal complainant in the
PS regarding the injuries sustained by one person Sakib @ Totla.
He denied that accused has been falsely implicated in this case
because no such written complain has been filed by the accused.
He had not recorded the statement of the shopkeepers as a
witness of this case. He admitted that the place of incident was a
public place and having heavy moment and having shops but
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
10/19
most of the shops are opened and rest of the closed. No written
notice was given to the shopkeepers and the pedestrians to join
the investigation. He had prepared the site plan by measurement
scale. He admitted that the sketch of the weapon was not
prepared with the scale but the site plan prepared with the scale.
He admitted that he had not shown the name of shop in the site
plan. He denied that nothing was recovered from the accused and
he has gone to PS for his police enquiry of his complant. He
denied that the lot of people gathered at the place of the incident.
IO has done the case work when he gone to registration of the
case. No addition or alteration were made in the case file by the
IO when he returned at the PS. He did not remember the accused
was sustained injuries on his head. He alongwith Ct. Kuldeep
took the hospital for medical examination. He denied that
accused falsely implicated in the case as the accused was BC. He
denied that no knife has been recovered from the accused. He
denied that he was deposing falsely.
13. Vide separate statements of the accused recorded u/s 294
CrPC, the accused admitted the factum of registration of FIR
Ex.A-1, Certificate under section 65-B Indian Evidence Act
Ex.A-2, endorsement on rukka Ex.A-3, DD No.72A and DD No.
78A both dated 06.08.2020 Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-5 and DAD
Notification dated 29.10.1980 Ex.A-6 without admitting the
contents of the same.
14. Vide order dated 14.11.2024, PE was closed at the request
of Ld. APP for the State.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
11/19
15. On 22.03.2025, statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC was
also recorded wherein accused denied the case of the prosecution
and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and
false case has been registered against him.
ARGUMENTS
16. During final arguments, it was argued by Ld. APP for the
State that the case against the accused stood proved in view of
the evidence led by the prosecution. Accordingly, he argued that
accused deserved to be convicted for the offence u/s 25 Arms
Act.
17. On the other hand, the Ld. defence counsel argued that the
prosecution has failed to bring out a case against the accused,
especially in view of the fact that no independent public
witnesses were made a part of the search despite the fact that the
accused was arrested from a public place. He further argued that
no CCTV footage indicating presence of the accused and the
police official at the alleged place of incident has been placed on
record. No chance prints were also taken from the alleged weapon
of recovery. Hence, he prayed for the accused to be acquitted for
the offences u/s 25 Arms Act.
ANALYSIS
18. The accused has been charged for the offence under
Section 25 of the Arms Act, as a buttondar knife was recovered
from the accused during the patrolling by the complainant. Under
sub-clause (1-B)(b) of the provision, acquisition, possession or
carrying of arms in contravention of notification issued under
Section 4 of the Arms Act is an offence. Section 4 stipulates that
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
12/19
the Central Government can regulate possession, acquisition or
carrying of certain arms not firearms in any area whenever it is
necessary or expedient in public interest. After the notification,
possession of such arms in that specified area without any licence
would be a breach liable to be punished under Section 25(1B)(b)
of the Arms Act. In the present case, the prosecution has relied
upon the notification dated 29.10.1980 issued by the Delhi
Administration (Ex. A7) whereby possession for sale of certain
knives with specified sharp edged blade of more than 7.62 cms or
more in length and 1.72 cms or more in breadth is barred.
19. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof
on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The
presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by
the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards
the guilt of the accused.
20. In order to sustain conviction u/s 25 of Arms Act, the
prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:
(1) The accused was found in the possession of the button
actuated knife.
(2) The accused was carrying the same without any
licence/permit or in contravention of notification of Delhi
Administration.
21. In the case such as the present one, the fact of recovery is
of utmost importance to bring home the guilt of an accused. It is
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
13/19
stated that while on patrolling duty, PW-1 HC Devender
intercepted the accused and recovered a button-dar knife from his
right side pant pocket. It is not disputed by the prosecution
witnesses on whose testimony the prosecution seeks to rely upon
that at the time of apprehension of the accused, there were
members of general public available at the spot from where
recovery was made, however it is both apparent and surprising
that no independent witness was made to join the investigation
by the police.
22. The importance of joining public persons in the recovery
proceedings has time and again been emphasised by Judicial
pronouncements. At this juncture, reference is made to the
judgment of Roop Chand v. State of Haryana 1989 SCC OnLine
P&H 539 : (1989) 2 RCR (Cri) 504, wherein it has been
observed:
“4. It is well settled principle of law that the Investigating Agency
should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of
contraband articles, if they are available and 5/2023 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.
23. 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
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
14/19
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 noted down their names and addresses etc. and
would 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 pubic is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All
these facts taken together makes the prosecution case highly
doubtful.”
24. Reliance is placed upon the judgement of State of Punjab
v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed 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 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.”
25. Burden therefore, lies on the prosecution to establish that
the association of public witnesses was not possible in the facts
and circumstances of the case. However, in the present case,
nothing in the testimony of prosecution witnesses suggests that
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
15/19
sincere efforts were made by them to involve independent
witnesses in the process of recovery and arrest.
26. In the present case, there was no lack of time and
opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the
search and strictly comply with the provisions of Code of
Criminal Procedure. As per documentary evidence, the accused
was apprehended at 8:.35 pm. The rukka Ex.PW1/A was
prepared at 10.55 pm and the FIR Ex.A-1 was registered at 11.08
pm. As per arrest memo Ex.PW1/E, the accused was arrested at
11:50 pm. Therefore, it is clear that the police officials were not
hard pressed for time as they remained at the spot from at least
8:35 pm till at least 11.30 pm. However, despite being at the spot
for about three hours, they did not join any public person in the
investigation. IO has even admitted the presence of public
witnesses at the spot and yet no independent public witnesses, in
stark violation of Section 100 (4) CrPC, were joined in the
investigation at the time of alleged recovery. IO did not even
mention the names or addresses of those persons who refused to
join the recovery proceedings. No explanation has come on
record to show whether any notice was served upon the public
witnesses requiring them to join the proceedings or to face action
under Section 187, Indian Penal code.
27. In the absence of any independent witness having been
joined in the investigation, false implication of the accused by the
police in the present case cannot be ruled out. Reliance is placed
upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Hemraj vs State of Haryana (AIR 2005 SC 2110) wherein it was
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
16/19
observed that, “the fact that no independent witness though
available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought
to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity
in the prosecution case.
28. Another dent in the prosecution case is related to the seal.
It is crucial to note here that there is a major discrepancy in this
regard that the seal was not handed over to an independent
witness after use.
29. This Court is conscious of precedent laid down by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. 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.”
30. Coming to the factual matrix of the present case, the
recovery witnesses namely PW-1 and PW-2 have deposed in
their examination-in-chief that PW-4 had seized and sealed the
case property at the spot in a white pullanda with the seal of
CHMHL-II. However it has been placed on record that the seal
was handed over to PW-3 after use. Hence, The seal remained
with the material prosecution witness, who was already interested
in the case of the prosecution and not handed over to an
independent witness nor deposited in malkhana. No explanation
has come on record as to why the seal was not handed over to an
independent witness or deposited in malkhana.
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
17/19
31. 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. Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the
seal was not within the reach of the said witness and thus, there
was no scope of tampering of case property.
32. In this regard, judgment in a case titled as Ramji Singh Vs.
State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452, may be
adverted to, wherein it was observed in paragraph 7 that:
“…The very purpose of giving a seal to an independent person is to
avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the
case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the
seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the
absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and
the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out.”
33. It is also pertinent to mention that no chance print was
taken from the seized knife to attribute it with the possession of
the accused. No CCTV footage or CDR is also on record to
fortify the claims of the prosecution. No photographs of the
accused has been taken at the time of recovery.
34. All the lapses in investigation create doubt on the recovery
of the buttondar knife from the possession of the accused, which is
the essential ingredient of the offence under Sec. 25 Arms Act.
CONCLUSION –
35. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the
guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the
offence under Section 25 Arms Act beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused has been successful in pointing out the deficiencies
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
18/19
in the case of the prosecution. The recovery of the illicit arm
from the possession of the accused is highly doubtful, owing to
various circumstances discussed above. The evidence of police
witnesses is not reliable and no independent witnesses were
joined, despite abundant availability. Inconsistencies and
deficiencies in the version of the prosecution have crumbled the
whole case of the prosecution.
36. Resultantly, accused Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
S/O Sayed Mansoor Hasan is entitled for benefit of reasonable
doubt and is hereby found not guilty. The accused is hereby
acquitted of the offence under Section 25 Arms Act.
Digitally signed
by SAYESHA
Announced in open court SAYESHA CHADHA
Date:
CHADHA 2025.07.12
in the presence of accused.
16:50:02
+0530
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
[This judgment contains 19 pages and each page bears the initials
of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of
undersigned.]
State Vs. Sayed Saud Hasan @ Bilal Hasan
FIR No. 261/2020
PS Chandni Mahal
19/19
[ad_2]
Source link