The accused, Yameen was found in possession of one buttondar knife in violation
of Delhi Administration Notification. Accordingly, the accused was charged with
the offence under Section 25 (1-B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959.
State vs. Yameen
Jurisdiction: High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur - Bench: Kapil Kumar
Metropolitan Magistrate - Date Of Judgment: 5th February 2022
- Whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused or not?
- Whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the
- 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 or not?
According to the prosecution, both W1 HC Raj Kumar and PW2 Ct Fakir Chand
testified that on 22.02.2020 they were out patrolling and the accused was
apprehended based on secret information. According to them, public persons were
asked to join the proceedings, but none agreed.
They stated that the accused was arrested and personally searched. They
correctly identified the knife which was proved as Ex.P1 and the accused in the
court. PW3 testified that he reached the site where the accused's custody and
case property were handed over to him, as well as the preparation of the site
plan and other ancillary procedures during the investigation. He correctly
identified the accused.
Ld. LAC for the accused vehemently argued that the accused was picked up from
his home by police officials and afterwards the knife was planted upon him. They
further stated that this got fortified with the fact that there is no public
witness in the present case despite the fact that the accused was captured in a
Judgement & Reasoning:
Considering the facts and circumstances of 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 the CRPC. Merely mentioning that
public persons were requested to join the investigation is of no avail. The
names of those persons & what action was taken against those persons who refused
to join the investigation were not mentioned. Hence, the above-mentioned creates
doubt in the case of the prosecution.
Further, the seal after use was not handed over to any independent person. Seal
after use was handed over to the police official. It appears that no effort was
made to hand over the seal after use to an independent person. Considering the
precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State
(1) RCR (Criminal) 622, there was a possibility of tampering with the contents
of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out and once doubt is created in the
preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
The case property was lying in the Maalkhana of the same police station, where
the police officer having possession of the seal was posted. There were ample
opportunities for tampering with the case property. Hence, considering the legal
position, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused. Considering
the testimonies, facts & circumstances of the case, it gives rise to two
inferences that either the FIR was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the
case property or the number of the said FIR was inserted in the document after
Further, it came to light that PW1 and PW2 did not offer their personal search
prior to the search of the accused. Both of them had offered their personal
search to some independent witness and had taken no precaution. The doubt as to
the false plantation of the case property cannot be ruled out.No efforts were
made by any of the police officials to lift the chance fingerprints from the
knife in question and no efforts were made to collect this scientific evidence
by the IO.
The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused was upon the prosecution
and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond a 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, he is entitled to the
benefit of doubt resulting in the acquittal of the accused. In view of the
above-said discussion, the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the
accused. Accordingly, the court had acquitted the accused Yameen of the charges
framed in the present case.
- State v/s . Yameen On 5 February, 2022". Indiankanoon.Org, 2022,