Delhi District Court
State vs . Pradeep on 6 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VISHAL GOGNE
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03(EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 334/05
PS Pandav Nagar
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
State Vs. Pradeep
JUDGMENT:
A Sl. No. of the case 02402R0478262005 B Date of institution 13.09.05 C Date of commission of 7.7.05 offence
D Name of the complainant Ct. Naresh Kumar E Name of the accused & Pradeep @ Vishal his parentage and address S/o Pavitradas R/o 4/182 Gali No. 2 Bangali Hotel Gazipur Delhi Present Address: H. NO. 4/182 Khichripur Delhi.
F Offence complained of U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act G Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty FIR No. 334/05, PS Pandav Nagar Page No. 1 of 6 H Order Reserved on 19.10.2012 I Final order Acquitted J Date of such order 06.11.2012
Brief reasons for the decision of the case.
1. It is in allegation against accused that on 07.07.2005 at about 02:15 p.m. at the Bus Stand situated at Kotla Village, he was apprehended by PW2(HC Naresh) & Ct. Harender Singh with a buttondar knife in contravention of the notification of the Delhi Government.
2. The charge was framed against the accused U/s 25 of Arms Act by the Ld. Predecessor on 26.07.2006. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution has examined the duty officer(PW1) and the IO(PW3) alongwith PW2. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence.
4. The Ld. APP has prayed for conviction on the testimony of PW2 to the effect that as he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Harender Singh in the area of Shashi Garden, Kotla FIR No. 334/05, PS Pandav Nagar Page No. 2 of 6 Village and had reached the Bus Stand, they saw a person standing at the Bus Stand who then attempted to escape. The suspect in question was present accused namely Pradeep who was apprehended after a short chase. The search of his trousers yielded a buttondar knife. The IO(PW3) reached the spot and was presented with the accused and the knife which was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/B whereas the sketch of the same was prepared and exhibited as Ex. PW2/A. The FIR. PW1/A was recorded on the statement of PW2(Ex. PW2/C). The IO verified this account during his deposition as PW3. The accused came to be arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/D and his personal search was recorded vide memo Ex. PW2/E. It was argued by the Ld. Prosecutor that PW2 had identified the accused and verified his arrest alongwith recovery of knife whereas the IO had corroborated the above witnesses. Further, that the knife had been identified as Ex.P1.
5. The counsel for the accused instead argued that the purported recovery is concocted and that the absence of any public witness renders the deposition of the police witnesses unworthy of belief. Further, that the police witnesses had conceded the presence of public persons at the spot. Resultantly, the failure of the PW2 & PW3 to FIR No. 334/05, PS Pandav Nagar Page No. 3 of 6 record their statements was an indication of the falsehood of allegations. It was argued that the failure even to record the names of the public persons was suggestive of the false nature of the allegations. Attention of the court was also drawn to the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein it was asserted that the accused had been falsely implicated.
6. What strikes the eye at the outset is the place of incident viz a Bus Stand and that too in the middle of the day i.e. 02:15 p.m. Any police action of chasing and apprehending a person at such a busy place cannot go unnoticed. PW2 admitted during cross examination that at least 1015 persons were present at the spot. This meant that PW2 had opportunity to obtain corroboration from a multitude of people. Yet, all that he offered by way of explanation was that 45 passersby were asked to join investigation but they refused. The court finds this explanation to be wholly inadequate. It is the duty of an officer of the law who exercise his authority in aid of his work. The task before PW2 and also the IO i.e. PW3 was to obtain independent verification. This was, however, omitted. It belies belief that policemen in uniform, as admitted by PW3, failed to obtain the cooperation of the FIR No. 334/05, PS Pandav Nagar Page No. 4 of 6 members of the public. The court is inclined to view the recovery proceedings with disbelief.
7. It is to be observed that PW2 & PW3 admitted during crossexamination that they did not serve any written notice upon the purported public persons. This omission again renders it impossible for the court to verify the identity of these persons. It was not just PW2 but also PW3 who had the opportunity to join public witnesses. Both opportunities were wasted.
8. The court is not inclined to convict the accused merely because the police witnesses identified the accused and case property during deposition. The absence of public witnesses is a fatal lapse.
9. It is also perplexing that despite the FIR having been registered after the seizure of the knife, the seizure memo and sketch of the knife bear the FIR number. Apparently, these documents were prepared after the FIR was registered. Resultantly, the possibility of manipulated documents cannot be ruled out. This in turn points to the possibility of false implication. The accused cannot be convicted when the doubts are so grave.
FIR No. 334/05, PS Pandav Nagar Page No. 5 of 6
10. The accused is acquitted of the charge framed U/s 25 of Arms Act.
11. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in open Court.
Delhi Dated the 06.11.2012 This Judgment contains 6 pages and each paper is signed by me.
VISHAL GOGNE MM(East)03/KKD Courts/Delhi 06.11.2012 FIR No. 334/05, PS Pandav Nagar Page No. 6 of 6