Delhi District Court
Fir No. 940/97 Stave vs . Allaudin on 24 June, 2007
FIR No. 940/97 Stave Vs. Allaudin
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : DELHI
STATE Vs. Allaudin Date of Institution 23/01/98
FIR No. 940/97 Judgment Reserved 24/08/07
on
PS- Kashmere Gate Date of Judgment 24/08/07
Under 25/54/59 Arms
Section Act & 103 DP
Act
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case 11-/3
b) Date of offence 28/12/97
c) Name of the complainant ASI P.C. Gill
d) Name & address of the accused Allauddin S/o Nathu
R/o H.No. D-512,
Bulamal Muszid,
Shastri Park, Delhi.
e) The offence complained of 25/54/59 Arms Act &
103 DP Act
f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
g) The final order Acquitted
h) Date of order 24/08/07
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Brief case of prosecution against the accused is that on FIR No. 940/97 Stave Vs. Allaudin 2 27/11/97 at about 6:10 PM at corner Mori Gate, near DTC Booth, within the jurisdiction of PS Kashmere Gate, the accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife without any permit or licence and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 25/54 Arms Act, 1959. It is further alleged against the accused that on the aforesaid date, time and place, he was found in possession of a new pocket purse containing cash of Rs. 141/-, one identity card of Dr. S.K. Yadav of Ranbaxy Company which was suspected to be stolen one and accused could not show his ownership of the same and thereby accused further committed offence punishable U/s 103 DP Act.
2. On filing of chargesheet by police personnel, my learned predecessor supplied necessary copies to accused and thereafter, after finding prima facie offence punishable U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act & U/s 103 DP Act, against accused, framed charge against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution examined three witnesses in support of its case.
Summary of statement of accused U/S 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded FIR No. 940/97 Stave Vs. Allaudin 3 separately on 10/08/07. The accused did not lead any evidence and final arguments on behalf of parties were heard.
4. I have considered final arguments of Learned APP for the state, Sh. L.N. Jha, Legal Aid Advocate, learned counsel for the accused, and have also perused the record.
5. On perusal of evidence, I am in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for defence that prosecution has failed to discharge its onus to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It has been rightly submitted by learned counsel for defence that Prosecution story that public witnesses were requested to join the investigation cannot be relied because no name of persons who were requested to join investigation is given either in the FIR or in chargesheet or in the evidence of witnesses, though it has been admitted that spot of crime is very congested locality where passerby are always present. It has been held by superior courts in a number of cases that in the absence of corroboration by independent witness of recovery, evidence of police officials cannot be relied upon
6. Even preparation of sketch plan of knife is doubtful as the FIR No. 940/97 Stave Vs. Allaudin 4 same bears FIR number of the case whereas PW1 has deposed that he prepared sketch plan on arrest of the accused and thereafter FIR was registered. Therefore, there was no FIR No. at the time of preparation of the plan of knife but plan bears FIR No. of the case. Hence very preparation of plan and recovery of knife become doubtful. The accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
7. Even with regard to possession of Rs. 141/- and one identity card of Dr. S.K. Yadav of Ranbaxy Company, prosecution could not establish its case. Said Dr. S.K. Yadav has not been produced by prosecution in the witness box. He was the only competent witness to depose that how and when his I card and other articles, if any, were lost by him and whether or not he has lodged any complaint in this regard or not. Prosecution has not alleged that said Rs. 141/- and I card was stolen by accused from Dr. S.K. Yadav. Therefore, even prosecution could not prove guilt of the accused with respect to offence U/s 103 DP Act.
8. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case. Hence, the accused is acquitted. Accused FIR No. 940/97 Stave Vs. Allaudin 5 be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Case property i.e knife be destroyed after expiry of period of appeal. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24th DAY OF AUGUST, 2007 (AJAY PANDEY) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI.