Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramesh @ Lallu on 26 July, 2013
State vs. Ramesh @ Lallu
IN THE COURT OF SH ANUJ AGARWAL: MM01(SE)/
SAKET COURT: DELHI
State vs. Ramesh @ Lallu
FIR NO. : 251/10
U/S : 25 Arms Act
PS : Badarpur
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 31/4
b) Date of institution of the case : 27.11.10
c) Date of commission of offence : 23.09.10
d) Name of the complainant : HC Ramraj
e) Name & address of the : Ramesh @ Lallu S/o Chhatrapal
accused R/o H.No. A883, PhII, Gautampuri,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
f) Offence charged with : 25 Arms Act
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 26.07.13
i) Final order : Acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 26.07.13
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, accused Ramesh @ Lallu has been sent to face trial with the allegations that on 23.09.10 at about 6.20 PM at Kachcha Rasta, Gautampuri, within the jurisdiction of PS Badarpur, accused FIR No. 251/10 PS Badarpur 1 of 6 State vs. Ramesh @ Lallu was found in possession of one buttondar knife without any licence or permit in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration. Investigation was carried out.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused person was consequently summoned. A formal charge U/s 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
4. PW1 is Ct. Ranvir Singh who has deposed as under : "on 23.09.10 I was posted at PS Badarpur. While patrolling alongwith HC Ramraj, we reached at Kachcha Rasta towards Gautampuri at about 6.20 PM. We saw accused present in the court today (correctly identified) was coming and on seeing us in uniform he turned back and started moving fastly. On suspicion we apprehended the accused whose possession one buttondar knife was recovered. Knife was measured and IO prepared sketch memo of the knife as Ex. PW 1/A. IO put the knife in cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of RR and same was seized vide memo Ex. PW 1/B. Seal after use was handed over to me. IO prepared Tehrir and got the case registered through me. Accused was arrested and personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW 1/C and D".
FIR No. 251/10 PS Badarpur 2 of 6
State vs. Ramesh @ Lallu
He identified the case property as Ex.P1. During his crossexamination he has deposed that request was made to public persons but no one came forward and no written notice was served upon them.
5. PW2 HC Suresh Chand is the duty officer who recorded the formal FIR. He proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW 2/A and his endorsement on rukka Ex.PW2/B.
6. PE was closed by order of this court on 26.07.13.
Memorandum of statement of accused U/s 281 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he has refuted the allegations levelled against him in toto. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence in his favour.
7. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
8. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
9. As per the prosecution case, two documents i.e. sketch memo of the knife Ex.PW1/A and the seizure memo of the knife Ex.PW1/B FIR No. 251/10 PS Badarpur 3 of 6 State vs. Ramesh @ Lallu were prepared before the preparation of the Rukka. However, the said documents would show that they contained the number of the FIR. It shows the serious infirmity in the case of prosecution as either the number of the FIR was inserted later on or that they were prepared before the time they have been shown to have been prepared. Be that as it may the same creates a reasonable doubt in the story of prosecution. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Giri Raj Vs. State 83 (2000) DLT 201, Mohd. Hashim, Appellant Vs. State, 2000 CRI.L.J. 1510, Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration, 1987 CCC 585 and Mewa Ram Vs. State 2000 CRI.L.J. 114.
10. As per the case of the prosecution, the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Ranvir and was not given to any independent public person which causes a reasonable doubt in the story of the prosecution. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.C. (Criminal) 452, Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa (2005) 9 SCC 773 and Bijay Vs. State (G.N.C.T. of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI) 562.
11. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the FIR No. 251/10 PS Badarpur 4 of 6 State vs. Ramesh @ Lallu police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. In the present case, no departure or the arrival entry has been proved on the record by the prosecution. In absence of the departure and arrival entry of the police officials their presence at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be made to on Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29.
12. In the present case, as per PW1 public persons were requested to join investigation but none of them agreed. However, no written notice was served upon them to join the proceedings in the present case or to face action U/sec. 187 IPC. Therefore it is clear that sincere efforts were not made to join independent witnesses despite their availability which causes a serious dent in the story of the prosecution.
13. In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi V/s 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 FIR No. 251/10 PS Badarpur 5 of 6 State vs. Ramesh @ Lallu 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 shopkeepers 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''.
14. Therefore, in view of the discussions made herein above and the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Ramesh @ Lallu stands acquitted of the offence Under Sec. 25 Arms Act. 1959. Case property be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court (Anuj Agarwal) on 26.07.13 MM01(SE)/Delhi/ 26.07.13 FIR No. 251/10 PS Badarpur 6 of 6