Delhi District Court
State vs . Sonu on 26 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA, MM-08 (SE)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
STATE VS. SONU
FIR NO. : 270/06
P.S. : LAJPAT NAGAR
U.S. : 25/54/59 ARMS ACT
Unique ID No.02403R0673822006
Serial No.902/5/11
Date of institution of case : 04.08.2006
Date on which case reserved : 26.04.2012
for judgment
Date of judgment : 26.04.2012
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Date of offence : 22.03.2006
b) Offence complained of : 25/54/59 Arms Act
c) Name of accused, his : Sonu
parentage & residence S/o Sh. Kalwa
R/o B-136, Gautam Puri, Badar Pur, New
Delhi.
d) Plea of accused : Not Guilty
e) Final order : Acquitted
Counsels for the Parties:-
For the State:- Sh. Mayank Tripathi
For the Accused:- Sh. Navdeep Singh
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE:
1.In brief the case of prosecution is that on 22.03.2006 at about 1.25 pm at DDA Park, Near DTC Bus Stand, Lala Lajpat Rai Marg Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Lajpat Nagar, accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife having blade of 16.5 Cms in length and having width of blade of 3 Cms without any valid license and in contravention of notification of Delhi administration and thereby FIR No. 270/06 State Vs. Sonu PS LN 1/6 committed an offence punishable U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act. Accused was arrested for being involved in non-bailable offence. However, later on he was released on bail by the Court order.
2. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused. Cognizance of the offence was taken and he was summoned to face the trial for the offence allegedly committed by him. Charge for the offence punishable U/s. 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused on 24.10.2007, to which he pleaded not guilty & claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate its version, Prosecution filed the list of six witnesses and examined three witnesses in all.
4. PW1 HC Jagpal Singh deposed that on 22.03.06, after receiving DD No. 25B, he reached at the spot, where Ct. Pawan Kumar and Ct. Nem Chand met him, who handed over the accused Sonu and recovered knife. He deposed that he requested 3-4 public persons to join the investigation, but they refused and left the place without giving their name and address. He prepared the rough sketch of knife vide Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signatures at point A. Length and width of the blade of knife was 16.5 cms and 3 cms and the length of the handle was of 19.1 Cms respectively. He also prepared the pulinda of knife in a white cloth and sealed it with the seal of JPD vide Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signatures at point B. After using the seal, same was handed over to Ct. Nem Chand. He also recorded the statement of Ct. Pawan vide Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signatures at point A and put his endorsement on it vide Ex. PW1/D, bearing his signatures at point A and prepared rukka and gave it to Ct. Nem Chand and sent him to PS Lajpat Nagar for registration of the FIR. He also prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Pawan Kumar vide Ex. PW1/E, bearing his signatures at point A. In the meantime, Ct. Nem Chand got the FIR registered at PS GK-1 and came back at the spot and FIR No. 270/06 State Vs. Sonu PS LN 2/6 handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He further deposed that Personal search of accused was conducted and was arrested vide Ex. PW1/F and PW1/G, bearing his signatures at point B. Accused also got medically examined and was sent to the lock up. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana. He also prepared the challan and submitted it in the Court. He also identified the accused and case property Ex. P-1. Accused was given opportunity to cross examine the witness but he did not cross examine him despite opportunities.
5. PW2 HC Pawan Kumar deposed that on 22.03.2006, he along with Ct. Nem Chand were on patrolling duty in the area of Lajpat Nagar-II. At around 01.30 pm, they reached near UTI Bank towards Lala Lajpat Rai Marg and near DTC Bus stand, they saw the accused standing in the corner of park, upon seeing the police party he started moving fast towards DTC bus stop, finding his suspicious condition, he was apprehended after 40-50 paces. He further deposed that he conducted the cursory search of accused and recovered one buttondar knife from the right side pocket of his trousers. Thereafter, he informed the local police and on information HC Jagpal reached on the spot to whom recovered knife and accused was handed over. He also deposed that they asked 8-10 passersby to join the investigation, but none agreed and left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. Rest he deposed to the line of PW1. He also proved Rough sketch of knife Ex. PW1/A, Seizure memo Ex.PW1/B, Statement of Ct. Nem Chand Ex.PW1/C, Rukka Ex.PW1/D, Site Plan Ex.PW1/E, Arrest Memo Ex.PW1/F and Personal Search Memo Ex PW1/G. He also identified the accused and case property Ex.P-1. Accused was offered to cross examine the witness but he did not cross examine him despite of the opportunities.
6. PW3 Ct. Nem Chand deposed to the line of PW1 and 2. He also proved FIR No. 270/06 State Vs. Sonu PS LN 3/6 Rough Sketch of Knife Ex.PW1/A, Seizure memo Ex.PW1/B, Arrest Memo Ex. PW1/G and Personal Search Memo Ex PW1/ F. He also identified the accused and case property Ex. P-1. Accused was offered to cross examine the witness but he did not cross examine him despite of the opportunities.
7. During the trial, accused did not dispute the genuineness of FIR, DAD notification and Entries of register No. 19. Hence, examination of Duty Officer, Concerned Clerk and MHC(M) PS-Lajpat Nagar was dispensed with. The copy of FIR was exhibited as Ex P1A and DAD notification was Marked as Mark 'A' Thereafter, Prosecution Evidence was closed as no other witness was left to be examined. Accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.PC and all the incriminating circumstances appearing on record against him were put to which he denied as false and incorrect however, he did not prefer to lead evidence in his defence.
8. Main arguments of Defence are:-
(1) Accused has been falsely implicated.
9. Main arguments of Prosecution are:-
(1) Sufficient materials are available on record to prove the guilt of accused.
(2) The testimonies of Prosecution Witnesses have remained unrebutted and unchallenged as accused did not cross examine them despite the opportunities. Accused has not been able to prove that he was falsely implicated and the knife was planted on him.
10. Court has heard the arguments of both sides and has also perused the FIR No. 270/06 State Vs. Sonu PS LN 4/6 entire record including the testimonies of witnesses. Though the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses have remained unchallenged but after appreciation of testimonies of witnesses as well as the material placed on record, the court is of the view that the charge framed against accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt for the following reasons:-
1. All prosecution witnesses are police witnesses. Failure on their part to make the Public witnesses join in the investigation especially when they are available, casts a serious doubt on the Prosecution story. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as PREM SINGH VS. STATE, 1996 Crl. L.J. 3604, PAWAN KUMAR VS. DELHI ADMN 1989 Crl. L.J. 127 (Delhi HC), NANAK CHAND VS. STATE OF DELHI, 1992 Crl. LJ 55 (Delhi HC).
2. No efforts were made to handover the seal to independent public persons after its use. The seal remained with the police officials only.
The handing over of the seal to public witness has not been proved hence it cannot be ruled out that the opportunity to tamper with the case property was very much there as the seal remained within the possession of police officials. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as "Prem Singh Vs. State" reported as 1996 CRI. L. J/ 3604 in this respect.
3. There is nothing on record to show at what time the Police personnel proceeded for patrolling duty. Strangely none of the witness could tell as to what time they proceeded for such patrolling. No DD entries have been placed on record to establish the departure and arrival of the said police officials on patrolling. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as Pappu alias Irfan Vs State of UP,2005[1] JCC [Narcotics]31).
4. It is not on record that the police officials had not offered their personal FIR No. 270/06 State Vs. Sonu PS LN 5/6 search before effecting the personal search of accused. Necessary inference can be easily drawn that the legal formality of search was not observed before recovery of the Knife from the accused. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as Resham Singh Vs. State (1981 CRI.LJ 1691).
5. No explanation has come as to how the rukka and seizure memo bear the FIR number. The number of FIR given on the top of the aforesaid documents clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. It seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution story. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as Lalji Shukla Vs State, 2000(2)JCC424(Delhi).
6. The identity of knife is doubtful. The buttondar knife allegedly recovered from the possession of accused was neither sent for chemical analysis nor fingerprints were lifted from the knife for the purpose of comparison by the expert. This makes the identity of knife doubtful (Bishnu Vs. State, 1996 JCC 469).
11. In view of above discussions, Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to bring such material on record which would have gone to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt holding him guilty for the offence under section 25 Arms Act. As such accused is acquitted from the charge framed under section 25 Arms act.
12. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
Announced & Dictated in (Mona Tardi Kerketta)
Open Court on 26.04.12 Metropolitan Magistrate-08 (SE)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
FIR No. 270/06 State Vs. Sonu PS LN 6/6