Delhi District Court
State vs Ranjeet ("Acquitted") Page 1 Of 11 on 20 October, 2012
FIR No.41/12: DBG Road: U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act DOD: 20.10.2012 IN THE COURT OF VIDYA PRAKASH: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI FIR No.:41/12 PS: DBG Road U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Unique ID No.: 02401R0200742012 J U D G M E N T:
______________________________________________________________
(a) S.No. of the case : 07/3
(b) Name of complainant : SI Anuj Aggarwal, PS DBG Road, Delhi.
(c) Date of commission of offence : 05.03.2012
(d) Name of the accused : Ranjeet
S/o Sunder Lal
R/o 9340, Katra Ganga Bishan
Kishanganj, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 20.10.2012
(h) Final Order : Acquitted
(i) Date of such order : 20.10.2012
State V/s Ranjeet ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 11
FIR No.41/12: DBG Road: U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act DOD: 20.10.2012
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
01. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that accused Ranjeet S/o Sh. Sunder Lal is facing trial in the present case on the allegations that on 05.03.2012, at about 08:40 PM at MTNL Park, near Idgah Chambery, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS DBG Road, he was found in possession of one buttondar knife in contravention of Gazette Notification and thus committed an offence punishable under section 25/54/59 Arms Act.
Detail of Court Proceedings:
02. After completion of investigation, the accused stood chargesheeted for offence punishable U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
03. After filing of the charge sheet in the case, accused was supplied the documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C and after hearing arguments on charge, vide order dated 26.06.2012 charge U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
04. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, whereafter PE in the matter was closed and statement of accused U/s 281 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he claimed State V/s Ranjeet ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 11 FIR No.41/12: DBG Road: U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act DOD: 20.10.2012 himself to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case but did not wish to lead any defence evidence in the matter.
Evidence Held:
05. A total of six witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
06. PW1, Ct. Dinesh deposed that on 05.03.2012, he was posted at PP Shidipura as DD writer and he recorded the relevant entry regarding departure of SI Anuj Aggarwal and Ct. Jaswant on official motorcycle from PP Shidipura vide entry no. 21 PP in the DD register. He proved the said DD entry as Ex.PW1/A.
07. PW2 HC Shiv Lal was the Duty Officer posted at PS DBG Road on 05.03.2012, who recorded the FIR in the matter. He proved the FIR in this matter as Ex.PW2/A. He proved his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW2/B. He also proved the necessary certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW2/C. In his cross examination, he stated that he took about 10 minutes in recording the FIR. He further told that Ct. Jaswant left the PS DBG Road alongwith copy of FIR at about 10:10 PM.
State V/s Ranjeet ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 11 FIR No.41/12: DBG Road: U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act DOD: 20.10.2012
8. PW3 Ct. Vipin Kumar deposed that on 05.03.2012, he was posted at PS DBG Road as DD writer who recorded the DD No.21. He proved the said DD entry as Ex.PW3/A. In his cross examination, he stated that DD no.21 was recorded at the time of departure of SI Anuj Aggarwal with Ct. Jaswant at once.
9. PW4 Ct. Jaswant Singh deposed that on 05.03.12, he was posted at PS DBG Road PP Shidipura and was on patrolling duty alongwith Chowki Incharge from 8.30 P.M. At about 11.40 P.M, the accused was apprehended by them. Prior to that, SI Anuj Aggarwal had received secret information that one person for the purpose of committing a crime has gone from MTNL Office to Idgah Gole Chakkar and can be apprehended if raided upon as he was standing at the Gole Chakkar. SI Anuj Aggarwal Chowki Incharge asked 12 persons to join the raiding party but none of them agreed disclosing their personal difficulties and left the spot. He alongwith SI Anuj Aggarwal went to the Gole Chakkar i.e Idgah Chambery. The accused was apprehended by them on the identification of the secret informer. Accused had disclosed his name as Ranjeet. SI Anuj Aggarwal took the cursory search of the accused. One buttondar knife was recovered from the right pocket of his pant. Sketch of the knife was prepared by SI Anuj Aggarwal as Ex PW4/A. On measuring total length of knife was 24 cm whereas the blade was 11 cm long. The handle was of steel like metal. The button was of brass. Check/crosses were engraved on the butt of the knife. The knife was kept in cloth pullanda and State V/s Ranjeet ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 11 FIR No.41/12: DBG Road: U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act DOD: 20.10.2012 was sealed with the seal of the IO. Thereafter, the said pullanda was seized vide memo Ex PW4/B. He stated that seal after use was not given to him by SI Anuj Aggarwal. Examination of this witness was deferred as he suddenly felt unwell.
Thereafter on 08.10.2012, further examination in chief of this witness was recorded wherein he further deposed that On 29.09.2012 it was at about 8.40 P.M, when the secret informer had come to SI Anuj Aggarwal and he had told him that as per the said information one person is standing near MTNL Office for the purpose of committing some crime. SI Anuj Aggarwal had asked 34 passers by to join the raiding party but they had refused disclosing their personal difficulties and had left the spot without giving names and addresses. The raiding party was prepared by SI Anuj Aggarwal including him. When they reached near the MTNL Office, the accused started going towards the park. He was apprehended by them. He got the FIR registered on the basis of tehrir prepared by IO SI Anuj Aggarwal. After registration of FIR, he gave the copy of FIR with original rukka to HC Ranjit for investigation. Thereafter, accused was arrested by HC Ranjit at the spot and he had signed the arrest memo Ex PW4/C. The personal search of the accused was taken vide memo Ex PW4/D. HC Ranjit had also prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence.
In his cross examination, he stated that he alongwith SI Anuj Aggarwal were members of the said raiding party which was prepared near Gole Chambery at about 8.40 P.M. They were having Government motorcycle State V/s Ranjeet ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 11 FIR No.41/12: DBG Road: U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act DOD: 20.10.2012 with them at that time. The distance between place of receipt of information and place of apprehending of accused was about 50 meters. The secret informer had not accompanied them to the place of apprehension of the accused. They immediately had left for the spot. He stated that he did not remember the articles recovered from personal search of the accused. There were no shops near the Fire Station. The shops were situated across the road in front of fire station. There was vacant space measuring about 50 meters on both sides of the fire station. Only 34 persons had met them who were asked to join the raiding party. This witness has correctly identified the accused as well as case property in the Court.
10. PW5 SI Anuj Aggarwal deposed on the similar lines of PW4.
11. PW6 HC Ranjit Singh was the second IO who deposed that on 05.03.12, he was posted at PP Shidipura PS DBG Road. On that day at about 10.20 P.M, Ct Jaswant handed over to him the copy of present FIR with original tehrir for investigation. He alongwith Ct. Jaswant Singh went to the spot i.e Rani Jhansi Road MTNL Park near Gole Chambery where SI Anuj Aggarwal was already present there who handed over to him one sealed pullanda of knife duly sealed with the seal of AA. He also produced the accused Ranjit. He made inquiry from the accused who disclosed his name as Ranjit. He prepared the site plan Ex PW6/A on the pointing out of SI Anuj Aggarwal. He recorded the statements of SI Anuj Aggarwal and Ct. Jaswant. State V/s Ranjeet ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 11 FIR No.41/12: DBG Road: U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act DOD: 20.10.2012 He formally arrested the accused and took his personal search. The accused was got medically examined and was sent to lock up. This witness correctly identified the accused in the Court.
In his cross examination, he stated that they reached at the spot at about 10.25 P.M. The accused was formally arrested at about 11 P.M. 23 public persons had come at the spot at the time of the arrest of accused. One black colour purse with some documents were recovered in the personal search of the accused. The pullanda of knife was already prepared by SI Anuj prior to his reaching at the spot. No secret informer met him at the spot. There were no shops near the spot. Shops were situated at a distance of 500 meters and were in front of the spot. On the right side of the park, the Chambery is situated and on the left side, there was open space measuring about 250300 Sq. yards. He did not note down the names or addresses of 23 public persons who had collected at the spot when he arrested the accused. He had not called any shopkeeper as shops were situated at quite some distance from the spot. He alongwith Ct. Jaswant and accused had gone to the PS directly from the spot on foot. He denied the suggestion that accused was called in the PS on the eve of Holi festival at the instructions of concerned SHO as he was previously involved in few other cases and he was got falsely implicated in this case as preventive measure.
12. This is all as far as prosecution evidence in the matter is concerned.
State V/s Ranjeet ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 11 FIR No.41/12: DBG Road: U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act DOD: 20.10.2012
13. Thereafter, the statement of accused U/s 281 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein, accused denied the evidence adduced against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No defence evidence was led by the accused.
14. I have heard arguments advanced at bar by the learned defence counsel as also by learned APP and have carefully gone through the evidence recorded in the matter and the documents placed on record by the prosecution in this case.
Arguments advanced & Case law cited:
15. The learned defence counsel has very vehemently argued that the case of prosecution rests entirely upon the testimony of police witnesses and there is no independent corroboration thereof. Ld. Defense counsel has further argued that there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses itself which makes the prosecution story unreliable. The law with regard to independent corroboration of search, seizure and recovery is now fairly settled. In case reported as, "1990 CCC 3", titled as, "Roop Chand V/s State of Haryana", the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that:
"That when some witnesses from the public were available, then the explanation furnished by the prosecution that they refused to join the investigation, the same is wholly unsatisfactory, particularly, when the IO did not note down their names and addresses and did not take any action against them".State V/s Ranjeet ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 11
FIR No.41/12: DBG Road: U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act DOD: 20.10.2012
16. In case reported as, "1990 CCC 20", titled as, "Maluk Singh V/s State of Punjab", the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has further held that:
"Joining of witnesses in the case of excise is not a mere formality, although there is no bar in taking into account the testimony of police witnesses, as they are also good witnesses, but to restore the confidence of general public in the investigating agency, it is always desirable that whenever any witness from the public is available, he should be joined to rule out the possibility of plantation".
17. The learned defence counsel has further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court, reported as, "1987 CC Cases 585 (HC)", titled as, "Pawan Kumar V/s Delhi Administration" that:
"It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the police raids of the recoveries, but that apart, atleast the IO should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witness. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of accused".
18. The learned defence counsel has further relied upon the observations made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case reported as, "1991(1) State V/s Ranjeet ("Acquitted") Page 9 of 11 FIR No.41/12: DBG Road: U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act DOD: 20.10.2012 CCC 14", titled as, "Nanak Chand V/s State of Delhi". I have gone through the said judgment. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said judgment has held that nonjoining of independent witnesses of locality in arms case caused doubt on the prosecution case.
19. Further in case reported as, "1975 CAR 309 (SC)", it has been held that:
"Prosecution case resting solely on the testimony of Head Constables and four other police constablesno independent witness examinedprosecution story appearing improbable and unnaturalheld that the prosecution case cannot be said to be free from reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be acquitted".
Court View & Final Decision:
20. In this case, the IO apprehended the accused from the Rani Jhansi Road, which is a populous area and as per the prosecution story itself crowd was present at the spot when police reached there but despite that it appears that no sincere effort had been made by the IO to join any public witness who were present at the spot at the relevant time even when the spot from where the accused was apprehended was a busy public place.
21. Law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, if applied on the facts of this case, then it would be definitely clear that the public witnesses were available, but the IO did not join them nor anything has been placed on record State V/s Ranjeet ("Acquitted") Page 10 of 11 FIR No.41/12: DBG Road: U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act DOD: 20.10.2012 to suggest that IO even recorded the names and addresses of those persons and taken any action against them. The case of prosecution becomes doubtful.
22. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion, that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt. The accused is accordingly entitled for acquittal. I order accordingly. Accused be released from judicial custody if not required in any other case. Case property be confiscated to the State. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
Announced in the open court (Vidya Prakash)
on 20.10.2012 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Delhi
State V/s Ranjeet ("Acquitted") Page 11 of 11