Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Jafar on 24 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. AAYUSHI SAXENA,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case No. -: 6524/18
CNR No. -: DLSH020116762018
FIR No. -: 631/18
Police Station -: Jafrabad
Section(s) -: 25 Arms Act
In the matter of: Digitally
signed by
AAYUSHI
AAYUSHI SAXENA
STATE SAXENA Date:
VERSUS 2025.07.24
16:40:24
+0530
Mohd. Jafar,
S/o Sh. Jamin Abbas
R/o H. No. 14/22, Gali No. 15, Chouhan Bazar, Seelampur,
Delhi.
...... Accused
HC Dharmender,
No.956/NE, PIS
1.
Name of Complainant :
No. 28931817,
AATS/NE.
Mohd. Jafar,
S/o Sh. Jamin
Abbas
2. Name of Accused : R/o H. No. 14/22,
Gali No. 15,
Chouhan Bazar,
Seelampur, Delhi.
Section 25 Arms
3. Offence complained of or proved :
Act
Accused pleaded
4. Plea of Accused :
not Guilty for
State Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 1 of 17
offence u/s 25
Arms Act.
Accused pleaded
guilty for the
offence u/s 174 A
IPC.
5. Date of commission of offence : 24.10.2018
6. Date of filing of case : 19.12.2018
7. Date of pronouncement : 24.07.2025
Accused was
convicted for the
offence u/s 174 A
IPC vide order
dated 18.12.2024.
8. Final Order :
Accused has been
acquitted for the
offence u/s 25
Arms Act on
24.07.2025.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE
DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX –
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 24.10.2018
at about 09:30 PM at Jafrabad Metro Station, the accused
was found in possession of one pistol and two live
cartridges without any valid license, in contravention of
provisions of Arms Act. The said pistol and 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 filedState Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 2 of 17
under Section 25 Arms Act in the court.
2. Vide order dated 30.01.2019, cognizance in the
present matter was taken by Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
Thereafter summons and warrants were issued for
appearance of accused but the accused did not appear in the
Court. Vide order dated 03.11.2024, accused was declared
proclaimed person. Persuant thereto on 04.12.2024 accused
was apprehended and was produced before this Court and
on that very date, copy of the police report/charge-sheet as
well as supplementary charge-sheet, alongwith documents
annexed therewith, was supplied to him as per Section 207
Cr.P.C.
3. On finding a prima facie case against the accused,
charge under Section 25 Arms Act was framed against him
by this Court on 18.12.2024, to which the accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial. Also, prima facie offence u/s
174 A IPC was made out against accused and charge was
framed accordingly, to which the accused pleaded guilty
and did not claim trial. In view of his plea of guilt, accused
was convicted for the offence u/s 174 A IPC and he was
sentenced to the period already undergone by him, as
substantive sentence.
4. On 18.12.2024 itself, vide his separate statement
State Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 3 of 17
recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C., the accused had admitted
following documents;
4.1.Copy of FIR No. 631/2018 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. 6 & 9, both dt. 24.10.2018, which was
exhibited as Ex.P3 & Ex.P4.
4.4.Ballistic report, which was exhibited as Ex.P5.
4.5.Sanction U/s 39 Arms Act, which was exhibited as
Ex.P6.
PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
examined six witnesses.
5.1 PW-1 ASI Dharmender deposed that on
24.10.2018, he was posted at AATS/NE, Yamuna
Vihar and on that day he along with ASI Satish Rana,
Ct. Anuj, Ct. Deepak, Ct. Amit Giri, and Ct.
Pareekshit were present at Yamuna Vihar AATS office
at around 06:00 PM and they reached Maujpur chowk
at around 08:30 PM. He further deposed that he met
one secret informer at around 08:30 PM, who told him
that one person, who was wanted from PS Usmanpur
and was habitual offender, would be coming at around
09:30 PM-10:00 PM on FZ motorcycle to meet his
State Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 4 of 17
associates near Jafrabad, Tent Wala School, 66 feet
road and might be carrying illegal weapons. He
further deposed that he informed the IC AATS about
the information received and he was directed to take
necessary action. He further deposed that he prepared
a raiding party along with the secret informer and also
briefed the police staff present about the secret
information, he also requested 5-6 public persons to
join the raid after briefing them about the information
received. He further deposed that they went to Tent
wala school and took their positions and kept waiting
for the accused to come. He further deposed that at
around 09:30 PM, one boy came on a FZ motorcycle
from Seelampur and stopped under Jafrabad metro
station and kept waiting for someone. He further
deposed that the secret informer pointed out towards
him and they approached the boy and caught the boy
with the motorcycle. He further deposed that on
inquiry the boy told his name as Jafar. He further
deposed that he made cursory search of the accused in
which one pistol from the left dub of the pant and one
live cartridge was recovered from the right pocket of
his pant. He further deposed that he opened the pistol
and checked it, in which he found that it did not
contain magazine but had one live round in the barrel.
He further deposed that thereafter he placed the pistol
and two live cartridges and prepared a sketch Ex.
State Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 5 of 17
PW-1/A measuring the same. Thereafter he seized the
pistol vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B in a white
plastic transparent box and sealed it with seal SR and
doctor tape. He further deposed that he asked for the
documents from the accused but the accused could not
produce the same and on checking the engine no. and
chasis no. on Zipnet, the same was found to be stolen
in E-FIR from PS Timarpur. He furhter deposed that
the motorcycle was also seized u/s 102 Cr. PC, vide
memo Ex. PW1/C. He futher deposed that he prepared
a rukka Ex. PW1/D and handed over the same to the
Ct. Pareekshit, to get the FIR registered and further
investigation was marked to SI Jaiveer Singh. He
further deposed that Ct. Pareekshit went to the PS and
got the FIR registered and returned with the copy of
FIR and original Tehrir along with SI Jaiveer. He
further deposed that SI Jaiveer met him, to whom he
handed over the accused and the sealed pullanda along
with sketch and seizure memo and the motorcycle. He
further deposed that SI Jaiveer prepared a site plan Ex.
PW-1/E on his instance. He further deposed that SI
Jaiveer recorded his statement and he was discharged
from the investigation. He correctly identified the
accused during his examination. He was cross
examined by Ld. LAC for accused.
5.2 PW-2 HC Parikshit deposed on similar lines as
PW-1. He further deposed that SI Jaiveer arrested the
State Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 6 of 17
accused after interrogation vide memo Ex. PW-2/A,
personally searched him vide memo Ex. PW-2/B and
recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.
PW-2/C.
He correctly identified the accused during his
examination. He was cross examined by Ld. LAC for
accused.
5.3 PW-3 HC Deepak deposed on similar lines as
PW-1 and PW-2.
He correctly identified the accused during his
examination. He was cross examined by Ld. LAC for
accused.
5.4 PW-4 HC Anuj desposed on similar lines as
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3.
He correctly identified the accused during his
examination. He was cross examined by Ld. LAC for
accused.
5.5 PW-5 Rtd. SI Jaiveer deposed that on 24.10.2018,
he was posted as Sl at ATS Yamuna Vihar. He further
deposed that on that day, the present case was marked
to him to conduct further investigation. He further
deposed that after receiving DD No. 9 dated
24.10.2018, he visited at the spot i.e., 66ft road in
front of the tent wala school, where he met IO HC
Dharmender, ASI Satish Rana, Ct. Anuj & Ct.
Deepak, who had already apprehended one person. He
State Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 7 of 17
further deposed that IO HC Dharmender handed over
him the accused as well as case property in sealed
pullanda vide seal of ‘SR’ and one motorcycle that was
recovered from the accused. He further deposed that
in the meantime, Ct. Parikshit came to the spot and
handed over him copy of FIR and original Rukka. He
further deposed that during investigation of the case,
he prepared site plan at the instance of the IO
Dharmender Ex.PW1/E and thereafter, he recorded
disclosure statement of the accused and prepared
arrest memo and personal search memo. He further
deposed that he had got conducted medical
examination of the accused and thereafter he
deposited the case property in the Malkhana. He
further deposed that, he recorded statement of the
witnesses and he also stated that during investigation
of the case, he had got the case property deposited by
Ct. Deepak for FSL result. He further deposed that
after preparation of the chargesheet, he filed the
chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet pertaining
to the FSL result before the court.
He correctly identified the accused during his
examination. He was cross examined by Ld. LAC for
accused.
5.6 PW-6, ASI Satish Kumar deposed that on
24.10.2018, he was posted as MHCM (CP) at PS
Jafrabad. He further deposed that on that day, IO of
State Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 8 of 17
the present case namely SI Jaiveer Singh had
deposited two separate case properties, i.e, one
motorcycle and other case property was in a sealed
condition with the seal of SR. He further deposed that
he had made entry in Register no. 19, copy of which
was Ex. PW6/A (OSR) (colly). He further deposed
that after two days, on the direction of the IO/SI
Jaiveer, Ct. Deepak came to the PS and he had handed
over him the case property in the sealed condition for
depositing the same to the FSL Rohini, with road
certificate no. 155/21/18 dated 26.10.2018 Ex.PW6/B.
He further deposed that after depositing the same, Ct.
Deepak handed over to him the acknowledgment of
the same Ex.PW6/C. He further deposed that on the
same date, one police official from PS Timarpur came
to him and he had handed over the case property i.e.,
motorcycle to him vide RC No. 156/21/18 dated
26.10.2018 Ex.PW6/D. He further deposed that on
08.01.2019, IO SI Jaiveer handed over him the copy
of the FSL result and the case property and he had
made entry in this regard in Register No. 19.
He was duly cross examined by Ld. LAC for accused.
6. Thereafter, PE was closed on 12.06.2025. On
28.06.2025, statement of accused was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused pleaded
State Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 9 of 17
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 Ld. APP for
the State and written submissions were filed by, Ld. LAC
for the accused. Ld. APP for the State has contended that
prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond all
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
State Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 10 of 17
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.
10.1. When PW1 was examined in chief, he
stated that he had requested 5-6 public persons to join
the raid. During his cross examination by Ld. LAC for
accused he stated that all the public persons, who were
requested to join the raid, were passers by and there
was no commercial shop near the tent Wala School. He
further stated that “It is wrong to suggest that no public
witness joined the raid as no such incident ever took
place”.
10.2. A perusal of the seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B
shows that no public witness has signed the same. Only
signatures of the Police officials are there on the
seizure memo. So admittedly, no public witnesses were
joined during recovery proceedings in the present
matter.
10.3. It is also pertinent to mention here that
place from where the accused was apprehended, was a
public place i.e., under the metro station Jafrabad, 66
feet road, Tent wala School, Delhi. Significantly, even
State Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 11 of 17
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 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.
10.4. 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.”
State Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 12 of 17
10.5. 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
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 factState Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 13 of 17
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”
10.6. In case of Pradeep Narayana V. State of
Maharashtra [reported AIR 1995 Supreme 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-1 shows that the case
property was sealed by him with the seal ‘SR’ and the same
was handed over to PW-5 Retired SI Jaiveer. 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-1 to PW-5. This Court is of the considered opinion that
PW-5, 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
State Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 14 of 17
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 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
State Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 15 of 17
present case.
14. Thus, there are major lacunaes in the case of the
prosecution. The afore-mentioned 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
Pistol 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 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,
accused Mohd. Jafar S/o Sh. Jamin Abbas, is hereby
acquitted for the offence u/s 25 Arms Act in FIR
No.631/2018, PS Jafrabad.
16. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused at
the time of commencement of trial stand cancelled. Surety,
if any, stands discharged. Documents, if any, shall be
State Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 16 of 17
returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if
any, stands cancelled. 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. 24.07.2025. signed by
AAYUSHI
AAYUSHI SAXENA
SAXENA Date:
2025.07.24
16:40:30
+0530
(Aayushi Saxena)
JMFC-05/SHDKarkardooma
Courts/Delhi/24.07.2025Digitally
This judgment consists of 17 pages and each page bears my signed by
AAYUSHI
signatures. AAYUSHI SAXENA
SAXENA Date:
2025.07.24
16:40:34
(Aayushi Saxena) +0530JMFC-05/SHD, Karkardooma
Courts/Delhi/24.07.2025State Vs. Mohd. Jafar
FIR No. 631/18
PS Jafrabad Page no. 17 of 17