Delhi District Court
State vs Sahil on 21 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL SAINI,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
DLSH020091112025
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.: 185/2025
Police Station: Jyoti Nagar
(Cr.Case No. 3866/2025)
bDate of the commission of the : 15.04.2025
offence
c Name of the Complainant : Ct. Vipin
dName of Accused person and : Sahil S/o Shri Jakir R/o: H.
his parentage and residence No. Gali no. 5, Kabiur
Nagar, Welcome, NE Delhi
e Offence complained of : u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
f Plea of the Accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
gFinal Order : Acquitted u/s 25/54/59 of
Arms Act
hOrder reserved on : 21.07.2026
i Order pronounced on : 21.07.2026
J Argued by Shri Arun Kumar Mavi, Ld.
APP for the State.
Shri Ravi Kumar Joshiya, Ld.
LADC for accused.
Brief statement of facts of the case and trial proceedings:
1.
The case of the Prosecution against accused Sahil S/o Jakir
is that on 15.04.2025, at about 8.00 pm, at Nala Raod Service
Road near Jal Board Office, Ambedkar College, Delhi within the
jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar, accused Sahil was found in
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
State vs. Sahil SAINI Date:
FIR No.185/2025 2026.07.21
14:52:02
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 1 of 15
possession of one buttondar knife in contravention of notification
issued by Delhi Administration. On the said allegations, accused
was booked with the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act
and FIR was registered.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the
Accused on 14.05.2025 whereupon Cognizance was taken in this
matter on the same day and copy of charge-sheet was supplied to
the accused. Charge was framed against the Accused on
28.05.2025 for the offence punishable under Section 25/54/59
Arms Act on the same day, to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
3. Subsequently, Prosecution evidence was led and in order to
prove its version, Prosecution has cited six witnesses out of
which, prosecution has examined only three witnesses i.e. PW1
HC Naveen, PW2 HC Surjeet Kumar and PW3 HC Vipin.
PW1 HC Naveen:- He deposed that on 15.04.2025, he
along with Ct. Vipin were on patrolling duty. During patrolling
duty at about 8.00 pm, they reached at Nala Road, service road
near Jal board Office, Ambedkar College and at about 8.10 pm,
one secret informer came there and told them that one person
who would come on stolen Scooty from the side of Kardampuri,
would go towards Loni Gol Chakkar and he was having an illegal
arms and if raid would be conducted then he would be
apprehended. Ct. Vipin shared this information to SHO on
mobile phone and SHO directed him to take necessary action
immediately. Thereafter, Ct.Vipin requested 2-3 public persons to
join the investigation but none agreed and went away without
Digitally
signed by
State vs. Sahil RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
FIR No.185/2025 SAINI Date:
2026.07.21
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 14:52:11
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 2 of 15
+0530
telling their names and addresses. In the meanwhile, one boy
came on Scooty from the side of nala road, service road and he
was going towards Loni Gol Chakkar and secret informer pointed
out towards him by stating that he was the same person. Ct.
Vipin gave signal to stop to him but he turned back and tried to
flee away from the spot and they had apprehended said person
after taking some distance. Ct. Vipin interrogated him who
revealed his name as Sahil. After that, he had taken the cursory
search of the said accused and recovered one buttondar knife
from the right side pocket of his pant. Ct. Vipin gave information
to the PS. The registration no. of the Scooty was DL SES 6594
make Suzuki. After sometime, IO/HC Surjeet Kumar reached at
the spot and they handed over the accused and case property i.e.
buttondar knife and scooty to IO/HC Surjeet Kumar. IO put
buttondar knife on a white blank paper and prepared its sketch
memo Ex. PW1/A and after that, IO had put the said knife in a
transparent box and prepared pullanda and sealed it with the seal
of SK and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B.
After that, IO had statement of Ct. Vipin and prepared rukka
and handed over the same to Ct. Vipin and after that, he left the
spot. Accordingly, he went to PS and got registered the present
FIR and he along with copy of FIR and original rukka came
back at the spot and same was handed over to IO. IO prepared
site plan at their instance which is Ex. PW1/C. The seal was
handed over to him by the IO after using it. IO interrogated the
accused and arrested him and conduced his personal search
memo vide memos Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E and had alsoDigitally
signed by
State vs. Sahil RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
FIR No.185/2025 SAINI Date:
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 2026.07.21 14:52:18 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages+0530 3 of 15
recorded disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex.
PW1/F. After that, IO had checked the said Scooty through its
Chassis no. and engine no. on zipnet and came to know that the
said scooty was the case property of e FIR No. 08924/2025, PS
Bhajanpura. After that, IO also seized the said scooty bearing no.
DL3SES 6594 u/s 106 BNSS vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/G.
Thereafter, they along with case property and accused went to
PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused
was sent to lock up. Witness had correctly identified the accused
as well as the case property i.e. knife Ex. P1.
During his cross examination by Ld. LADC for the
accused, witness deposed that he did not make any separate
departure entry before leaving PS. He had left the PS at about 8
pm and reached at the spot at about 8.10 pm. Witness admitted
that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming
and going there and that no written notice was served upon any
public persons who reused to join and that the seizure memo and
sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of the FIR and
nothing was changed after registration of the FIR. Witness
admitted that IO did not prepare seal handing over memo and
receiving over memo. Witness further deposed that IO did not
seize the clothes of the accused in the present matter. IO handed
over rukka to Ct. Vipin at around 9.30 pm and he came back at
the spot with copy of FIR at around 9.50 pm. IO prepared site
plan at about 10.00 pm. Witness had denied the suggestion that
the case property was planted upon accused or that accused was
falsely implicated in the present matter or that he was arrestedDigitally
signed by
State vs. Sahil RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
FIR No.185/2025 SAINI Date:
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 2026.07.21 14:52:25 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 4 of 15 +0530
from his house despite the spot or that he never visited at the spot
or that all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS.
PW2 HC Surjeet Kumar:-He deposed that on
15.04.2025, on receipt of DD No. 99 regarding recovery of
buttondar knife he went to the spot at Nala Road, service road
near Jal board Office, Ambedkar College where he met Ct. Vipin
and HC Naveen and they handed over the accused and case
property i.e. buttondar knife and scooty bearing No. DL 3SES
6594 to him. Further, he had put buttondar knife on a white
blank paper and prepared its sketch memo Ex. PW1/A and seized
the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. Further, he had
recorded statement of Ct. Vipin which is Ex. PW2/A and had
prepared rukka which is Ex.PW2/B and handed over the same
to Ct. Vipin. He further deposed that Ct. Vipin after registration
of the FIR and original rukka came back at the spot and same
was handed over to him. Further, he had prepared site plan at the
instance of Ct.Vipin and HC Naveen which was Ex. PW1/C.
The seal was handed over to HC Naveen by him after using it.
After that, he had interrogated the accused and arrested him and
conduced his personal search memo vide memos Ex. PW1/D
and Ex. PW1/E and had also recorded disclosure statement of
the accused which is Ex. PW1/F. After that, he checked the
said Scooty through its Chassis no. and engine no. on zipnet and
came to know that the said scooty was the case property of e FIR
No. 08924/2025, PS Bhajanpura. Further, he had also seized the
said scooty bearing no. DL3SES 6594 u/s 106 BNSS vide seizure
memo Ex. PW1/G. Thereafter, they along with case property
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
State vs. Sahil RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
FIR No.185/2025 2026.07.21
14:52:31
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 5 of 15
and accused went to PS and case property was deposited in the
malkhana and accused was sent to lock up.He had also obtained
the DAD notification dated 29.10980 which is Ex. A2. He had
correctly identified the accused as well as the case property.
During his cross examination by Ld. LAC for the accused
witness deposed that he had left the PS at about 8.15 pm and he
reached at the spot at about 8.20 pm. Witness admitted that the
spot was a public place and public persons were coming and
going there and that no written notice was served upon any
public persons who reused to join and that the seizure memo and
sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of the FIR or
that nothing was changed after registration of the FIR or that he
did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over
memo. He further deposed that he handed over rukka to Ct.
Vipin at around 9.30 pm and he came back at the spot with copy
of FIR at around 10.15 pm. He had prepared site plan at about
10.20 pm.
Witness had denied the suggestion that the case
property was planted upon accused or that accused was falsely
implicated in the present matter or that he was arrested from his
house despite the spot or that he never visited at the spot or that
all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS. Or that he did
not request to public persons to join the investigation at the spot
or that he never conducted fair investigation in the present matter.
PW: 3: HC Vipin:- He had deposed the similar facts as
deposed by PW1 HC Naveen in his examination in chief as they
both were on patrolling duty together.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
State vs. Sahil RAHUL SAINI
FIR No.185/2025 SAINI Date:
2026.07.21
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 14:52:36
+0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 6 of 15
During his cross examination by Ld. LADC for the
accused he deposed that he did not make any separate departure
entry before leaving PS. Further, he had left the PS at about 8
pm and reached at the spot at about 8.10 pm on motorcycle.
Witness admitted that the spot was a public place and
public persons were coming and going there and that no written
notice was served upon any public persons who refused to join
and that the seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior
to registration of the FIR and nothing was changed after
registration of the FIR. Witness further admitted that IO did not
prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo.
Witness further deposed that IO did not seize the clothes of the
accused in the present matter. IO handed over rukka to him at
around 9.30 pm and he came back at the spot with copy of FIR at
around 10.00 pm. IO prepared site plan at about 10.10 pm. No
videography and photography were done while recovery of the
case property. Witness admitted that they did not offer their
search to the accused prior to taking search of the accused.
Witness had denied the suggestion that the case property
was planted upon accused or that accused was falsely implicated
in the present matter or that he was arrested from his house
despite the spot or that he never visited at the spot or that all
proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS or that they did
not request to public persons to join the investigation at the spot.
It is pertinent to note that vide order dated
28.05.2025, witness mentioned at Sl. No. 2 ASI Anil Kumar and
Sl. No. 6 Concerned Official were dropped from the list of
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
State vs. Sahil RAHUL SAINI
FIR No.185/2025 SAINI Date:
2026.07.21
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 14:52:42
+0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 7 of 15
witnesses as accused has admitted the genuineness of the FIR
along with Certificate u/s 65 of IEA which is Ex. A1 (Colly)
and DAD notification dated 29.10.1980 which is Ex. A2 qua the
present case in his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
4. Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313
Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C on 08.06.2026 and all
incriminating evidence appearing on record against the accused
are put to him to which accused stated that he has been falsely
implicated in the present case. He had preferred not to lead any
evidence in his defence. Hence, DE stands closed.
Appreciation of Evidence
5. The arguments were addressed by Ld. APP for the State as
well as Ld. LADC for the Accused in detail.
Ld. APP for the State argued that the case of the
Prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on
account of the unfettered testimonies of the prime Prosecution
witnesses i.e. the complainant and IO. Ld. APP for the State
further argued that this case merits conviction of the Accused as
the Prosecution case stands firmly on its own footing and merely
because of absence of public witnesses, the veracity of public
witnesses does not stand negated.
Vehemently, denying the arguments of Ld. APP for the
State, Ld. LADC for the Accused argued that the Accused has
been falsely implicated in the present case and he has been made
only a victim of circumstances. It was further argued by Ld.
LADC for the Accused that nothing was recovered from the
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
State vs. Sahil RAHUL SAINI
FIR No.185/2025 SAINI Date:
2026.07.21
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 14:52:48
+0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 8 of 15
possession of the Accused and this is the reason why no
independent witness has been brought by Prosecution in this
matter. Hence, Ld. LADC for the Accused strongly argued for
acquittal of the Accused in this matter.
Submissions have been duly heard. Record has been
carefully perused.
6. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that Prosecution
is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading
reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled
proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on
judicial file, Prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and
it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if
any, of the defence of the Accused. Further, it is also a settled
proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of
the Prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the
Prosecution and it never shifts on to the Accused. Also, it is a
settled proposition of criminal law that Accused is entitled to the
benefit of every reasonable doubt in the Prosecution story and
such reasonable doubt entitles the Accused to acquittal.
7. Evaluating the facts and evidence discussed above, at the
outset, it comes out that no independent witness was joined in the
investigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter titled as
State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh [AIR 1994 SC 1872] , held
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
Digitally
signed by
State vs. Sahil RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
FIR No.185/2025 SAINI Date:
2026.07.21
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 14:52:55
+0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 9 of 15
the same on the main case depends upon
the facts and 8.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.
[Emphasis supplied]”
8. At this stage, it is also crucial to observe that witnesses
have admitted that no public persons have been made to join the
investigation in this matter despite the fact that the spot of the
incident is a public place where public persons were present.
Further, no notice has been served to any of the public persons
who did not join the investigation. It is also pertinent to note that
the alleged incident has occurred on a busy public road and
therefore, absence of public witnesses from the investigation
becomes even more apparent.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
State vs. Sahil SAINI Date:
2026.07.21
FIR No.185/2025 14:53:02
+0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 10 of 15
Considering the above facts, it comes out that there was
no lack of time and opportunity with the IO to associate some
independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with
the provisions of code of criminal procedure.
The above stated observation of this court is fortified by
the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Hemraj vs. State Of Haryana [AIR 2005 SC 2110] as
follows:-
“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…”
Furthermore, in case titled as Roop Chand vs. State of
OF [1999 (1)C.L.R 69], the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab
Haryana has held 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
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
State vs. Sahil RAHUL SAINI
FIR No.185/2025 SAINI Date:
2026.07.21
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 14:53:10
+0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 11 of 15
refused to join the investigation. A police
officer conducting investigation of a
crime is entitled to ask anybody to join
the investigation and on refusal by a
person from the public the Investigating
Officer can take action against such a
person under the law. Had it been a fact
that he witnesses from the public had
refused to to join the investigation, the
Investigating Officer must have
proceeded against them under the
relevant provisions of law. The failure to
do so by the police officer is suggestive of
the fact that the explanation for non-
joining the witnesses from the public is an
after thought and is not worthy of
credence. All these facts taken together
make the Prosecution case highly
doubtful…”
9. Moving further, this Court is conscious of precedent laid
down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Safiullah
vs. 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.”
The case property in the present matter was lying in the
Malkhana of the same police station where the police officials
having the possession of seal were posted. There was ample
opportunity for tampering with the case property. Hence,
Digitally
State vs. Sahil signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
FIR No.185/2025 SAINI Date:
2026.07.21
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 14:53:17
+0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 12 of 15
considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be
given to the Accused.
10. Besides all this, in the present case, the aforesaid lapse on
the part of police officials assumes significance on account of
another grave contradiction apparent in the documents
Ex.PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. The sketch memo of the knife Ex.
PW1/A and seizure memo of the knife Ex. PW1/B bear the
number of FIR. As per the rukka and testimony of witnesses, the
sketch memo of the knife and seizure memos were prepared prior
to registration of FIR. If that be so, then it is questionable as to
how the said documents bear the FIR number. This gives rise to
two inferences that either the FIR was recorded prior to the
alleged recovery of the case property or number of the said FIR
was inserted in the document after its registration. In both the
situations, it seriously questions the veracity of the Prosecution
version and creates a good deal of doubt about the recovery of
the case property in the manner alleged by the Prosecution. That
being so, the benefit arising out of such a situation must
necessarily go to the Accused.
In this regard, reference is made to the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Mohd Hasim V/S
State [1999 VI AD (DELHI) 569] wherein it was observed:
“…documents prepared before
registering the FIR bears FIR numbers,
meaning thereby either FIR was
recorded posterior in time or that
documents were prepared after the
recording of FIR, and in both cases,
Prosecution case would collapse.”
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
State vs. Sahil RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
FIR No.185/2025 2026.07.21
14:53:23
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 13 of 15
11. Further, in order to ensure fair investigation, the
Prosecution witnesses must have offered their personal search to
some independent witness. However, as no such precaution was
taken by Prosecution witnesses the doubt as to the false
plantation of the case property upon the Accused cannot be ruled
out. In S. L. Goswami Vs. State Of M.P., [1972 CRI.L.J 511
(SC)] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“… in our view, the onus to proving all the
ingredient of an offence is always upon
the Prosecution and at no stage does it
shift to the Accused. It is no part of the
Prosecution duty to somehow hook the
crook. Even in case where the defence of
the Accused does not appear to be
credible or is palpably false that burden
does not become any the less. It is only
when this burden is discharged that it will
be for the Accused to explain or
controvert the essential elements in the
Prosecution case, which would negative
it. It is not however for the Accused even
at the initial stage to prove something
which has to be eliminated by the
Prosecution to establish the ingredient of
the offence with which he is charged, and
even if the onus shifts upon the Accused
and the Accused has to establish his plea,
the standard of proof is not the same as
that which vests upon the Prosecution…”
This also raises doubt about the recovery of the said case
property from the present Accused and strengthens the possibility
of planting of the case property upon the Accused. It clearly
shows that no clear evidence as to the recovery of the case
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
2026.07.21
State vs. Sahil 14:53:29
FIR No.185/2025 +0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 14 of 15
property from the accused person has been put forth by the
prosecution witness.
Conclusion
12. The onus and duty to prove the case against the Accused
was upon the Prosecution and the Prosecution must establish the
charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of
criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with
regard to the guilt of the Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt
resulting in acquittal of the Accused.
13. In view of above said discussion, the Prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, Accused Sahil S/o Shri Jakir stands acquitted
of the offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act framed in
the present case. Case property be confiscated to the State. Same
be destroyed.
14. Accused is directed to furnish the bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C
15. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary
Digitally
signed by
compliance. RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
2026.07.21
Announced in an open court on 14:53:36
+053021.07.2026 (Rahul Saini)
JMFC-08(Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
21.07.2026
[This judgment contains 15 signed pages]
[This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.]State vs. Sahil
FIR No.185/2025
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 15 of 15
