Ghaziabad Court Acquits Man in 22-Year-Old Arms Act Case Over Witness Testimony Failures
An additional sessions court in Ghaziabad on Tuesday acquitted a man accused under the Arms Act for allegedly brandishing a firearm during a children's fight that occurred 22 years ago. The acquittal came after prosecution witnesses failed to recall the exact sequence of events and were declared hostile, leading the court to question the veracity of the charges.
Court Highlights Insufficiency of Prosecution Evidence
The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Dinesh Chandra Shukla, held that merely proving prosecution documents is insufficient unless the allegations are corroborated by witness testimony. Judge Shukla observed that the recovery of the alleged weapon itself remained doubtful, stating, "The witnesses who were supposed to prove the recovery did not do so. Hence, the recovery of the illegal pistol and cartridges from the accused becomes questionable."
The court added that the prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused was acquitted and directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with two sureties of the same amount under Section 437 of the CrPC within a week.
Background of the 2004 Incident
The case dates back to November 2, 2004, when a fight allegedly broke out among children in Mirzapur village under Vijaynagar police station over a cricket bat. The dispute escalated, and family members reportedly got involved. Police said four persons — Hasmat, Gulzar, Israr and Khalid — allegedly entered the house of the complainant, Tausif, and assaulted a boy named Ikhlaq.
An FIR was registered the next day after the same group allegedly returned and injured Tausif's son Quamil and Ikhlaq's brother Shaukin. Police registered two separate cases:
- One under sections 307, 504 and 452 of IPC against the four accused
- Another under Section 25 of the Arms Act against Hasmat for allegedly brandishing a pistol, which police claimed to have recovered along with an empty cartridge
Police later filed charge sheets in both cases. While the first case was tried separately, the Arms Act case was handed over to the sessions court. Charges against Hasmat were framed on November 14, 2017, following which the trial commenced.
Witness Testimonies Undermine Prosecution Case
During the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses, including the complainant, Tausif. In a significant blow to the prosecution's case, Tausif stated in his cross-examination that the pistol was given to him by someone in the crowd, and he did not snatch it from Hasmat. He also said he could not confirm whether it was the same pistol and did not know the origin of the empty cartridge.
Shaukin, who was allegedly injured in the incident, denied that any firearm was used. He stated that while there was a fight among children years ago, no pistol was involved and he did not suffer any injury. He was declared hostile after denying the statement attributed to him under Section 161 CrPC.
Court's Final Observations and Acquittal
After hearing the testimonies, the court observed that the prosecution failed to prove either the incident or the recovery of the alleged .315-bore pistol and cartridge. The lack of credible witness testimony and inconsistencies in the evidence presented led to the conclusion that the charges could not be sustained.
This case highlights the critical importance of witness reliability in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving serious charges under the Arms Act. The 22-year delay in resolution also raises questions about the efficiency of the judicial process in handling such matters.
