Delhi District Court
State vs . Anis on 6 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR, ACMM / NORTH EAST :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Anis
FIR No : 11/06
U/S : 25 of Arms Act
PS : New Usman Pur
1. Serial No. of the case : 967/07/12
2. Date of commission of offence : 13.01.2006
3. Date of institution of the case : 30.01.2006
4. Name of the complainant (if any) : HC Sulekh Chand
No.365/NE,PS New Usmanpur
5. Name of accused person, : Anis
his parentage and address S/o Sh. Abdul Aziz
R/o H. No. K165, New Seelam
Pur, Delhi
6. Offence complained of or proved : U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
and his examination ( if any)
8. Date of arguments : 06.01.2014
9. Date of judgment/final arguments : 06.01.2014
10. Final order : Acquitted
11. Brief statement of the reason for decision :
FIR No. 11/06 State Vs. Anis 1/4
Judgment :
Vide this judgment, I shall decide this case under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :
1. Prosecution has alleged that on 13.01.200 at 6.00 pm at Pandushilla Palace, Shastri Park Red Light, Delhi, accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife in contravention of notification of Delhi Administration. The accused was arrested under Section 25 of Arms Act and chargesheeted after investigation.
2. Accused appeared before this Court and after compliance under Section 207 IPC, charge under section 25 of Arms Act was framed against him vide order dated 02.07.2007 and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove the case, prosecution has examined PW1 ASI Sulekh Chand, PW2 SI Chand Singh and closed PE. After closure of PE, Statement of accused u/s 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC was recorded. Accused has not led any defence evidence.
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. As per the prosecution story, accused was apprehended by the police officials during FIR No. 11/06 State Vs. Anis 2/4 patrolling at a public place and knife was recovered out of his possession.
Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, where all the PWs are police officials a false implication of the accused may not be ruled out. Though it is not a legal requirement that the testimony of police officials is not reliable, yet the testimony is to be considered with cautions, in view of the facts. In the present case, accused was apprehended at public place and public witnesses were available, but public persons were not made witness to the recovery or arrest of accused and even no notice was served upon the public persons who allegedly refused to participate in the proceedings. Further, the PW1 who was the main witness in this case did not remember the DD entry number by which he left the police station for patrolling which was necessary in view of Rule 22.49 (d) of Punjab Rules, and fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even he did not offer his personal search to the accused before carrying out his personal search. In fact, in this case, in the absence of any particulars of patrolling time of police officials and absence of public persons as recovery / arrest witness of accused, a false implication of the accused may not be ruled out. Further, the prosecution has examined only one main PW ASI Sulekh Chand and other PW SI Vijay Pal could not be examined, due to paralysis and his non examination was fatal to the case of prosecution. As such, prosecution has failed to prove its FIR No. 11/06 State Vs. Anis 3/4 case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I hereby give a benefit of doubt to the accused and accused is hereby acquitted of all the charges. Surety discharged. Any documents placed on record, either by surety or accused, be returned against acknowledgment. Case property is forfeited to the State and be destroyed as per rules after appeal. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court (DEVENDER KUMAR)
th
on 6 January, 2014 ACMM (North East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 11/06 State Vs. Anis 4/4