Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi @ Ram Jane on 9 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SHAILENDER MALIK: ACMM/01
NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs.Ravi @ Ram Jane
FIR No. 607/05
U/s: 25 Arms Act
PS Shahdara
Date of Institution of case:12.09.2006
Date on which judgment is reserved:06.10.2012
Date on which judgment is delivered::09.10.2012
Unique ID No. 02402R0534202006
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 121/06
b) Date of commission of offence : 13.12.2005
c) Name of complainant : ASI Ravinder Dutt
d) Name of accused, his parentage : Ravi @ Ram Jane S/o:
Itwari R/o: Shop No.
98, Welcome Market,
Delhi
e) Offence complained of or proved : 25 Arms Act
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded Not Guilty
g) Final Order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 09.10.2012
FIR NO. 607/05 page 1 of 7 pages
i) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
Accused Ravi @ Ram Jane S/o Itwari was sent up to face trial for the offence under section 25 Arms Act with the allegations that on 13.12.2005 at about 5.15 pm near Shyam Lal College bus stand, G. T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi accused was found in possession of one loaded country made pistol without any permit or licence. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed.
Copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused free of cost and Ld. Predecessor of this court after considering the material available on record framed the charge for the offence under section 25 Arms Act vide order dtd. 23.01.2008 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate the charge prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses.
PW1 is Ct. Virender Singh who had testified that on 13.12.2005, he alongwith ASI Ravinder Dutt and Ct. Jag Mohan was on patrolling and when they reached near the traffic signal Shyam Lal College, at about 5:15 pm secret informer had informed that a person having illegal arms was standing near Shyam Lal College. On this information they reached there and noticed that a boy was standing Shyam Lal College who after seeing the police party had starting walking. They apprehended him and upon formal search one loaded country made pistol was recovered from the left dub of his pant. He was interrogated and he had disclosed his name as Ravi @ Ram Jane. He had further testified that IO had prepared the sketch of the country made pistol and cartridge Ex. PW1/A and seized the same after sealing the same with the seal of RDS vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. IO had FIR NO. 607/05 page 2 of 7 pages prepared the tehrir and got the case registered through him. After registration of the case he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. IO had arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex. PW1/C&D respectively. Accused was got medically examined and thereafter brought to the police station and put behind the bars and case property was deposited in the malkhana.
PW2 is ASI Ravinder Dutt had also testified the similar facts as deposed by PW1. He had deposed that he had prepared the rukka Ex. PW2/A and got the case registered through Ct. Virender who after registration of the case alongwith ASI Dharampal reached the spot. He had handed over the accused and the sealed pullanda and other documents to second IO ASI Dharmapal.
PW3 SI Satender Prasad who had proved the registration of the formal FIR Ex. PW3/A on the basis of tehrir sent by ASI Ravinder Dutt and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW3/B. PW4 is HC Jagmohan who had deposed the similar facts as deposed by PW1 and PW2. He had prepared the site plan. PW5 is HC Vikram Singh who had testified that he had deposited the case property in sealed condition & FSL form in FSL Hyderabad and on return deposited the receipt with MHC(M) of PS Shahdara.
PW6 is retired ASI Dharampal who had deposed the same facts as deposed by PW1 & PW2. He had testified that he had prepared the site plan Ex. PW6/A. PW7 is HC Sanjay Singh who had proved the relevant entry in register no.19 regarding the deposition of case property as Ex. PW7/A and sending of the case property to FSL for examination vide RC NO. 44/21 vide copy of RC as Ex.
PW7/B. FIR NO. 607/05 page 3 of 7 pages
PW8 is Shri Jaspal Singh Dy. Director who had testified that on 17.4.07 he was posted as DCP, North East District Delhi. IO of this case FIR no. 607/05 produced before him the police file report under section 173 Cr.P.C. He after considering the statements and the other evidence on record as well as the report of FSL Ballistics, applied his mind and had accorded sanction vide sanction letter no. 7158/SO/DCP/NE Distt dtd. 17.4.2007 for prosecution of accused Ravi @ Ram Jane S/o Shri Itwari in terms of the provisions of section 39 of the arms Act. Sanction is Ex. PW8/A. Thereafter PE was closed and all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused in statement recorded as per 281/313 CrPC wherein accused had denied the entire evidence and had taken the plea of false implication.
I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused. Having heard the submissions and having gone through the record carefully perusal of the record would show that PW1, PW2 and Pw4 are the witnesses of recovery. Perusal of the evidence of these witnesses would clearly indicate that secret information was received at about 5.15 pm. Thereafter above said three police officials reached near Shyam Lal College and after noticing the accused persons, he was apprehended and upon search recovery was effected. Taking the evidence on the face of it, important question arises for consideration as to why an independent witness was not joined in the investigation. Perusal of cross examination of Pw1, Pw2 and PW4 would indicate that these witnesses have stated that ASI Ravinder Dutt requested 2/3 public persons to join the raiding party but all of them left . In cross examination of PW2 it has come that ASI Ravinder Dutt had also gone to a shop nearby to Shyam Lal College and requested the shopkeepers to join the investigation but they stated FIR NO. 607/05 page 4 of 7 pages to have not joined the investigation. PW2 further says in cross examination that he did not note their names or addresses nor gave notice to any of the public witness to join investigation. Taking the evidence of these witnesses as a whole I find that if the prosecution version was that secret information was received at 5.15 pm there was enough opportunity for the police officials to join the public witness , however, evidently recovery is not effected in the presence of any public witness. In this regard, it is necessary to refer the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh 1994(4) J.T (SC) 595 wherein it has been held that provisions of the court of criminal procedure relating to search, seizure and arrest is intended to safeguard the right of the accused as well as legal recovery. It is well settled that failure to comply with the provisions of court of criminal procedure in respect of search, seizure as provided under section 100/102/103/165 are very important.
In this case, when alleged secret information was received at about 5.15 pm it is hard to understand that despite the alleged recovery effected in a busy area near Shyam Lal College why the police official (Pw2) has not served any public witness any notice under section 100(8) of the court. Thus non joining of independent witness clearly casts doubt as to the whole recovery in the light of the judgment relied upon.
The prosecution version is that Constable Virender Singh , ASI Ravinder Dutt and H. Constable Jagmohan were on patrolling duty , however, from the cross examination of PW1, Pw2 and PW4 it will be clear that these witnesses have not placed on record the copy of the DD entry vide which they left the police station for patrolling duty , so that it should have been proved on the record as to from during what time they were on patrolling duty.
FIR NO. 607/05 page 5 of 7 pages Another important aspect pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the accused is that upon apprehending of the accused, when he was searched, one loaded country made pistol was recovered and thereafter a sketch Ex. Pw1/A was prepared and case property was kept in a pullanda and was sealed with the seal of RS and sealed pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and thereafter ASI Ravinder Dutt stated to have prepared tehrir Ex. PW2/A. Tehrir was prepared at 7.00 pm . As such documents Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW1/B and tehrir Ex. PW2/A were prepared prior to the registration of the FIR but these documents bear the details regarding FIR no. and other particulars on the top whereas FIR was registered subsequently. There has been no explanation either from Pw2 ASI Ravainder Dutt or from the second IO PW6 ASI Dharam Pal as to how the FIR no. and other details were mentioned on the above mentioned documents. In this regard Ld. Counsel for the accused has rightly relied upon the judgment of Delhi High court in Prithvi Pal Singh @ Munna Vs/ State, in para no. 10 of the said judgment Hon'ble High Court in similar situation has held that when documents prepared prior to the registration of the FIR bearing details about the FIR no. etc on its top and in the absence of any explanation from the prosecution in this regard two possibilities arises one that FIR was registered prior to the alleged recovery or number of the FIR were inserted on those documents after its registration. In either situation it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution case. These irregularities in the prosecution case coupled with the fact that recovery was not effected in the presence of independent witness clearly casts doubt as to whole procedure of alleged recovery.
Matter can be appreciated from another angle. According to PW1, Pw2 and PW4 case property i.e. recovered country made katta was kept in a cloth pullanda and was sealed with the seal of RDS . PW5 HC Vikram when appeared in the FIR NO. 607/05 page 6 of 7 pages witness box he has stated that he had taken one sealed pullanda from MHC(M) with seal of TS for depositing to FSL, Hyderabad,. Recovery witness stated to have put seal of RDS whereas case property which was sent to the FSL for ballistic expert opinion was carrying the seal of TS. This contradiction also create a great amount of doubt as to whole procedure carried out in this case. Thus for the reasons discussed above, I find that there are many doubtful circumstances in this case, the benefit of which have to be given to the accused. As a consequence thereof accused stands acquitted. His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled and discharged.
File be consigned to record room.
(ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 09.10.2012) (SHAILENDER MALIK) ACMM/01, NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI.
FIR NO. 607/05 page 7 of 7 pages