Delhi District Court
State vs . Karamjeet Singh on 19 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. P. SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-02/WEST : DELHI
STATE Vs. Karamjeet Singh
FIR No. : 155/2000
U/SEC : 27 Arms Act, 1959
PS : Hari Nagar
Unique Case ID Number: 02401R0183972000
JUDGMENT
Serial No. of the case 123/3/00 Date of commission of offence '11.04.2000 Date of institution of the case '15.05.2000 Name of the complainant Ct. Jitender Kumar
Name of accused, parentage & Karamjeet Singh s/o Rattan Singh r/o address A-35-36, Hari Nagar, Delhi Offence complained or proved Section 27, Arms Act, 1959 Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty Date of arguments 19.08.2011 Final order Acquitted Date of Judgment 19.08.2011
1. The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 11.04.2000 PW3 Ct. Jitender, who was the beat constable of the area, while on patrolling duty reached at Main Market Hari Nagar. Over there in front of the premises number A-35-36, Main Market, Hari Nagar at about 08:15 PM he saw that a crowd had gathered. He also saw the accused in possession of a knife. It is alleged that the accused was waving the knife in the air. With the assistance of the public persons the accused was apprehended by constable Jitender. Information was conveyed to the police station. PW2 HC Vijender alongwith the IO SI Manmat Kumar reached at the spot. The knife was seized. Accused was arrested. FIR came to be registered. Investigation commenced.
2. Chargesheet was filed in the Court on 15.05.2000. Cognizance of the offence was taken. Copies were supplied to the accused. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act was framed against the accused on 23.09.2002 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Matter was thereafter posted for prosecution evidence and during the course of prosecution evidence four prosecution witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded in the manner prescribed under Section 313 CrPC wherein the accused submitted that he was innocent and that he had been falsely implicated. The accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.
4. The four prosecution witnesses that were examined during the course of the trial are as follows: (1) HC ASI Brij Mohan, duty officer, who had exhibited FIR Ex. PW1/A; (2) PW2 HC Vijender; (3) PW3 Ct. Jitender; (4) PW4 SI Manmat Kumar
5. I have heard the arguments at Bar and perused the records of the case.
6. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. It is also a settled proposition that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution case in a criminal trial throughout the course of the trial rests entirely and entirely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such reasonable doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
7. In the present case, it is the averment of the prosecution that the beat constable PW3 Ct. Jitender on reaching the spot found that the accused was waving a knife at a crowd and threatening the crowd. There is no other ocular witness to the incident except for PW3 Ct. Jitender. In his cross examination he stated that there were as many as 30-35 people in the crowd. However in the present case not even a single public person from the crowd has been made a witness. Neither any sincere attempt was made to join any of the persons out of the crowd a witness to the incident. PW3 Ct. Jitender in his testimony before the court claims to have apprehended the accused with the help of few public persons. However, even those public persons who had allegedly helped Ct. Jitender in apprehending the accused have not been cited as a witness. Quite contrary to his testimony before the court, PW3 Ct. Jitender in his complaint Ex. PW3/A asserts that he had apprehended the accused all by himself.
8. Furthermore, PW4 SI Manmat alongwith PW2 HC Vijender had reached the spot upon receiving telephonic information about the incident. It has come in the testimonies of PW4 SI Manmat and PW2 HC Vijender that when they reached the spot the crowd was still present there. Ct. Vijender stated that when he reached the spot 10-15 people were still there. PW4 SI Manmat states that when he reached the spot 8-10 people were still there. In their cross examination PW4 and PW2 stated that the public persons were requested to join but they refused. After the apprehension of the accused, IO of the case could very well have served the public witnesses with notice in writing to join the police proceedings inasmuch as at that point of time accused already stood apprehended and there was no possibility of accused escaping his arrest or crime going undetected. At least in the facts and circumstances of the case in my opinion IO must have asked the persons available at the spot by serving them notice in writing and in case of their refusal IO must have taken action against them under section 187 IPC. Facts and circumstance of the case suggests that no sincere efforts have been made by police official to join independent public witnesses in the police proceedings.
9. From a common sense approach, it appears to entirely inconceivable and implausible that a person would start waving a knife to a big crowd consisting of 30-35 people; and that too, right in front of his own premises. As per the challan the spot of the incident was right in front of the own house of the accused. It is also inconceivable that the crowd consisting of as many as 30-35 people would silently watch the spectacle of a person waving a knife at them and threatening them. It also appears to be implausible that the crowd of 30-35 people would wait for the arrival of the beat constable of the area to apprehend a person waving a knife at them and threatening them. Crowd of 30-35 people is sufficient enough by itself to overpower the accused and apprehend him. The circumstance detailed herein and the preceding paragraph create a doubt about the prosecution case.
10. In the present case, there is discrepancy about the seal used to seal the case property. PW2 HC Vijender and PW4 SI Manmat state that seal of RSS was used to seal the case property. Contradicting this PW3 Ct. Jitender states that seal of MSK was used. Testimony of PW3 Ct. Jitender on this aspect is entirely incorrect for the reason that the case property which was produced on 13.01.2011 had the seal of RSS. Furthermore, the IO SI Manmat in his evidence has clearly conceded that he had used the seal of RSS as his seal was not available. However, the question that arises is whether before taking the seal of some other Sub-Inspector, did he make the relevant entry in the relevant register. No evidence has been led on the point. This aspect creates a doubt in the prosecution case.
11. Still more, it has come in the prosecution evidence that after the knife was seized the same was measured. However the prosecution witnesses differ on the method used to measure the knife. PW2 Ct. Vijender states that a plastic scale was used to measure the knife. Whereas PW4 SI Manmat states that an inch-tape was used to measure the knife. This creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution.
12. As per the Punjab Police Rules, entry is mandatorily required to be made as regards the hour of arrival and departure of police personnel on duty. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that the entry of the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be made immediately. However in the present case no DD entry is shown or proved to have been recorded regarding the departure of PW2 HC Vijender for his patrolling duty. This aspect creates a doubt about the case of the prosecution.
13. Therefore, in my view the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and he is therefore acquitted of the offence under section 27 Arms Act. Bail bond of the accused is cancelled. Surety of the accused is discharged. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT M. P. SINGH
ON 19th August, 2011 MM-02/WESTDELHI
19.08.2011