Delhi District Court
Fir No.496/2006 State vs . Rekha 1/5 on 3 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHUNALI GUPTA, ACMM (NORTH DISTRICT)
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
FIR No.: 496/2006
u/s 61.1.14 Punjab Excise Act
P.S. Mukherjee Nagar
Date of institution : 07.07.2007
Date of Final argument : 03.03.2014
Date of final order : 03.03.2014
A Sl. No. of the Case : 02404RO696572007
B: Date of Offence : 02.11.2006
C: Name of the Complainant : HC Anil Kumar
D: Name of the Accused : Rekha W/o. Late Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o. 156, THut, Village Mallikpur,
Delhi.
E: Offence Complained of : 61.1.14 Punjab Excise Act
F: Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
G: Final Order : Acquitted
H: Date of such Order : 03.03.2014.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.Accused Rekha is facing trial on the allegations of the prosecution that on 02.11.06 at about 8:00 P.M. at Malikpur Vilalge, Tagore Park, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mukherjee Nagar, he was found in possession of eight bottles of illicit liquor without any permit or licence and in contravention of Notification issued by the Delhi Administration.
FIR No.496/2006 State Vs. Rekha 1/5
2. After investigation, the challan was filed. Prima Facie case u/s 61/1/14 Ex. Act was made out against the accused. After compliance of section 207 Cr. P. C, accused was charged accordingly by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. In support of its case prosecution has examined witness namely PW1 HC Narender Kumar, PW2 HC Rajiv, PW3 Ct. Venugopal and PW4 W/HC Raj Dulari. Thereafter PE was closed by my Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 20.12.2013. Statement of accused Rekha was recorded u/s 313 CrPC wherein all incriminating evidence as alleged by the prosecution and as deposed by the prosecution witnesses were put to the accused to which he stated that he has been falsely implicated by the police. He was called by the IO in the police station and was arrested and nothing had been recovered from his possession. He further stated that the case property has been planted upon him. However, the accused did not opt to lead evidence in his defence.
4. I have heard Ld. APP for State and the ld counsel for the accused.
5. PW1 HC Narender Kumar is the DO in this case. He proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/A and endorsement on rukka Ex.PW1/B. PW2 is HC Rajiv. He deposed in the witness box that on 02.11.06 he was posted at PS Mukherjee Nagar as Constable and was on patrolling duty in Beat No. 10. The duty officer of PS Mukherji Nagar asked him on telephone at about 9.52 p.m. to go to Gol Chakkar, Tagore Park wherein HC Anil FIR No.496/2006 State Vs. Rekha 2/5 had arrested one lady with illicit liquor. He accordingly went to the spot where he met HC who produced accused Rekha. PW2 HC Rajiv correctly identified the accused in the court. He further deposed that just after he reached the spot Ct. Shokeen Pal and L/HC Raj Dulari also reached at the spot and Ct. Shokeen Pal handed over him tehrir at the spot and first IO HC Anil Kumar handed over to him form M29 Excise Act, the illicit liquor and sample liquor, all sealed with the seal of AK. He proved the site plan which was prepared by him at the instance of first IO. He got arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B and got conducted personal search vide memo Ex.PW2/C. He informed Sushil Kumar regarding the arrest and after arrival of Sushil Kumar, accused was admitted to bail vide bail bond Ex.PW2/D. Thereafter, he returned to the police station with case file and case property was deposited in the Malkhana. After receiving the report of Excise Lab and recording of statement of witnesses, he prepared the challan and file the same in the court. No crossexamination of this witness was conducted.
6. PW3 is Ct. Venugopal. On 05.12.07, he collected the samples and Exicse Form from MHC (M) sealed with the seal of AK and deposited the same at Excise Lab at ITO vide Road Certificate No. 121/21/06. He proved the result of Excise Lab Ex.PW3/A.
7. PW4 is W/HC Raj Dulari. She deposed that she reached the spot along with Ct. Shokeen where HC Rajeev received documents and sample in sealed condition from HC Anil Kumar. HC Rajeev handed over him accused Rekha and she also identified accused in the court. She further deposed that HC Rajeev prepared site plan at the instance of HC Anil Kumar. She also proved the arrest memo and personal search memo FIR No.496/2006 State Vs. Rekha 3/5 vide memo Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C.
7. I have heard Ld. APP for State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
8. The investigation conducted by the material witnesses including independent public witnesses is the only yardstick for assessing the genuineness of the story put forth by the prosecution. No independent / public witness was brought to the witness box to testify the testimonies / depositions of the witnesses examined during the course of trial and thus their testimonies remained uncorroborated. The non joining of the public witness creates doubt on the story of the prosecution as held in PAWAN KUMAR Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION 1987 CC Cases 585 HC by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Otherwise also it is settled law that testimonies of police personnels have to be read with due care and caution especially when the same are not supported by any other independent witness to the recovery.
A bare perusal of testimonies and the documents proved by them only drags the fate of the matter towards its fag end. The reasons amongst others, for arriving at this conclusion, are as under: ✔ The recovery was effected from a public place, Still no public witness was joined in the investigation ✔ No notice was served upon the public persons for nonjoining the proceedings ✔ The accused was arrested on 02.11.2006 whereas the sample was sent to Excise Laboratory on 05.12.06 . There is a delay of 34 days in sending the sample.
FIR No.496/2006 State Vs. Rekha 4/5
No reason assigned.
✔ Memo of handing over seal was not prepared.
Further a bare perusal of testimonies of PW's, their version appear to be stereo typed and keeping in view the fact that their narration remained uncorroborated by any other independent witness to recovery of illicit liquor , it will be highly unsafe to rely upon their version to pass the order of conviction against the accused. It has been held in 1975 CAR 309 (SC) that Prosecution case resting solely on the testimony of head constable and four other police constables no independent witness examined prosecution story appearing improbable and unnatural ' held that the prosecution case can not be said to be free from reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be acquitted.
9. Keeping in view the above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, It will be highly unsafe the pass the order of the conviction against the accused on the basis of the material available before me in the present case. Thus I am left with no option but to hold that prosecution failed miserably to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt. Benefit of doubt is, therefore, given to the accused and accused Rekha, therefore, stands acquitted from the charge U/s 61/1/14 Excise Act. Her bail bond cancelled and surety stands discharged. Endorsement, if any, be also cancelled. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT TODAY i.e : 03rd March, 2014 (SHUNALI GUPTA)
ACMM (NORTH)/ROHINI COURTS
FIR No.496/2006 State Vs. Rekha 5/5