Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT GARG
JMFC-08 PHC/ND PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Case No. 4170/2025
FIR No. 184/2025
P.S. Naraina
State Vs. Suraj
JUDGMENT
Date of the Commission of offence 18.04.2025
Date of Institution of the case 20.05.2025
Date of reserving the judgment 21.05.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment 23.05.2026
Name of the Complainant Head Constable Sunil
Kumar, No. 2191/W, PIS
No. 28101531, Posted in
Police Station Naraina, New
Delhi.
Name of Accused, their Parentage Suraj, S/o Shri Tulsi Ram,
Aged about 34 years, R/o H.
No. 1443, Block-E, Transit
Camp, Anand Parvat, New
Delhi.
Offences complained of or proved U/s. 25 Arms Act
Plea of accused Plead not guilty and claimed
trial
Final order Acquittal
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
-- 1 of 6 --
1. The present case arises out of FIR No. 184/2025
registered at Police Station Naraina for the offence punishable under
Section 25 of the Arms Act against accused Suraj. The case of the
prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.04.2025 at about 09:35 PM near Z
Block Jhuggi, Railway Line, Phase-I, Naraina, Delhi, accused Suraj
was found in possession of one button operated knife in
contravention of the notification issued by Delhi Administration and
thereby committed offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms
Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before
the Court. Charge was framed against the accused vide order dated
21.08.2025, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined three
witnesses.
3. PW1 HC Sunil deposed that on 18.04.2025 he was
posted at PS Naraina and was on patrolling duty along with Ct.
Vikram. At about 09:35 PM, near Z Block Jhuggi, Railway Line,
Phase-I, Naraina, they noticed one person coming from Kirti Nagar
side who, upon seeing them, turned around and attempted to move
away. On suspicion, he was apprehended and during cursory search
one button operated knife was allegedly recovered from the right
pocket of his trouser. He further deposed that he requested 4-5 public
persons to join investigation but they refused. He prepared sketch of
knife Ex.PW1/A, seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and rukka Ex.PW1/C.
Thereafter, Ct. Vikram went for registration of FIR and second IO
HC Kamlesh reached the spot. Witness correctly identified accused
as well as case property in Court.
-- 2 of 6 --
4. During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the place
of apprehension was a public place and many public persons were
passing by. He further admitted that no photography or videography
of search, seizure or apprehension proceedings was conducted. He
also admitted that no notice was given to public persons who
allegedly refused to join investigation and their particulars were also
not noted down. He further admitted that the spot was not under
CCTV surveillance and his duty roster for the day of incident was not
on judicial record.
5. PW2 Ct. Vikram Kumar supported the testimony of
PW1 and deposed regarding apprehension of accused, recovery of
buttondar knife, preparation of documents and registration of FIR. He
also identified accused and case property before the Court.
6. In his cross-examination, PW2 also admitted that the
place of apprehension was a public place and many public persons
were present there. He admitted that no photography or videography
of proceedings was conducted. He further admitted that no notice was
given to public persons who allegedly refused to join investigation
and their names and particulars were also not noted down. He further
admitted that duty roster of the day of incident was not placed on
judicial record.
7. PW3 HC Kamlesh, the second Investigating Officer,
deposed that after registration of FIR, further investigation was
marked to him and he reached the spot where accused and case
property were produced before him. He prepared site plan
-- 3 of 6 --
Ex.PW3/A, arrested the accused and conducted further investigation.
8. During his cross-examination, PW3 admitted that the
place of apprehension was a public place and many public persons
were passing by. He further admitted that no notice was given to
public persons who allegedly refused to join investigation and their
particulars were not noted down. He also admitted that no
photography or videography was conducted during proceedings.
9. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was
dispensed with/not on record. The accused denied the allegations
throughout trial and claimed false implication.
10. I have heard learned APP for the State and learned
counsel for accused. Record has been carefully perused.
11. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the
alleged recovery of one button operated knife from possession of the
accused. Therefore, the recovery proceedings and credibility thereof
assume great significance. In the present case, admittedly the alleged
recovery was effected from a public place where public persons were
available. All prosecution witnesses have admitted the said fact
during their cross-examination. However, despite availability of
public persons, no independent witness was joined in the
investigation.
12. Though prosecution witnesses have stated that public
persons refused to join investigation, admittedly no written notice
-- 4 of 6 --
was served upon any such person and even their names and
particulars were not noted down. No action whatsoever was taken
against the persons who allegedly refused to join the proceedings.
Such explanation appears to be stereotyped and unconvincing. It is
settled law that though testimony of police officials cannot be
discarded merely because they are police witnesses, however, where
recovery is alleged from a public place and no sincere effort is made
to join independent witnesses, the Court is required to scrutinize the
prosecution case with greater caution.
13. In the present matter, prosecution has also failed to
produce any photography or videography of the recovery
proceedings. All witnesses have admitted that no photography or
videography was conducted. No CCTV footage was collected. Even
the duty roster of police officials for the relevant date and time has
not been placed on judicial record. The prosecution case further
suffers from absence of any independent corroboration. All witnesses
examined by prosecution are police witnesses only. There is no
public witness to support the alleged recovery.
14. The recovery witness as well as Investigating Officer
have admitted material omissions during cross-examination. The
prosecution has failed to explain why no genuine effort was made to
associate public witnesses despite availability. Such lapses assume
importance particularly in cases based solely on alleged recovery.
Criminal jurisprudence mandates that prosecution must prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. The burden always remains upon
prosecution and benefit of every reasonable doubt must go to the
-- 5 of 6 --
accused.
15. In the considered opinion of this Court, the non-joining
of independent public witnesses, absence of written notices to
persons refusing investigation, lack of photography/videography and
absence of independent corroboration create serious doubt regarding
the fairness and genuineness of alleged recovery proceedings.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that prosecution has failed to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that accused Suraj was found in conscious
possession of prohibited button operated knife in contravention of
notification issued by Delhi Administration.
17. Accordingly, accused Suraj is acquitted of offence
punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
This judgment contains 06 pages and each page bears my signature.
Pronounced in the open
Court on 23.05.2026. (Ankit Garg)
JMFC-08, PHC, ND
-- 6 of 6 --