Delhi District Court
State vs . Guddu Sheikh on 19 December, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAGANDEEP SINGH
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DELHI
FIR NO: 148/00
U/S: 25/54/59 ARMS ACT
P.S: TIMAR PUR
STATE VS. GUDDU SHEIKH
:JUDGMENT:
Sl. No. of the case 487/3
Date of commission of offence 05.04.2000
Name of the complainant HC Randhir Singh
No. 457/N, AATS/North,
Delhi.
Name, parentage and address Guddu Sheikh @ Khokhan
of the accused. S/o Sh. Sheikh Hassan
R/o H. No. C9, 360,
Dhobi Ghat, Sanjay Amar
Colony, Yamuna Pusta
Colony, Delhi.
Offence complained off U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
STATE VS. GUDDU SHEIKH
1/8
FIR NO. 148/00
Final order Acquitted
Date of order 19.12.2013
Date of final arguments heard 19.12.2013
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION :
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is that on 05.04.2000 at about 1.10 am at Sur Ghat near Wazirabad Picket, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Timar Pur, the accused was found in possession of one button actuated knife with one ustra without any license or permit and in contravention of Delhi Administration Notification. Thereafter, accused was booked U/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act 1959.
2. That after completion of investigation the challan against the accused was filed on 19.04.2000 and accused was summoned. Thereafter the charge u/s 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused on 20.05.2000 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution has examined three witnesses for proving their case.
4. The PW1 HC Ramvir is the duty officer. The carbon copy of FIR is Ex. PW1/A.
5. The PW2 HC Anil is the 2nd IO who has deposed that on 05.04.2000 the STATE VS. GUDDU SHEIKH 2/8 FIR NO. 148/00 present case was marked to him for further investigation. He went to the spot alongwith Ct. Manoj. There he met HC Randhir Singh and he handed over to him two seizure memo's, two pullandas duly sealed with the seal of RS and the custody of accused. He prepared the site plan Ex. PW2/A at the instance of 1st IO. He arrested the accused and prepared arrest memo Ex. PW2/B and personal search memo Ex. PW2/C.
6. The PW3 HC Manoj is the main recovery witness who has deposed that on 04.04.2000 he was alongwith SI Mahesh Kasana, SI Sharad Kohli, HC Mohd. Iqbal, HC Ashok, HC Suresh, HC Randhir Singh, Ct. Arjun, Ct. Anil, Ct. Ravi Dutt, Ct. Rajinder Singh, Inspector Heera Lal, Ct. Man Singh etc., and they all were on patrolling duty on government vehicle bearing No. DL1V2879. They departed from the ATS North office at about 10.00/10.30 pm. That while patrolling they reached at the Majnu Ka Tilla, Red Light near Gurudwara. There one secret informer informed Ct. Ravi Dutt regarding 4/5 boys who are in possession of illegal weapons. Ct. Ravi Dutt briefed about this information to the Inspector Heera Lal. Accordingly, Inspector Heera Lal directed SI Mahesh Kasana to form a raiding party and asked 4/5 public persons to join the investigation, but none agreed. They reached at Sur Ghat Wazirabad Pull near police picket. Four to five raiding parties were formed consisting of two to three police persons and they took positions at various places. At about 1.00/1.10 am four to five persons came from the Wazirabad side. They were pointed out by the secret informer. All of them on seeing them tried to run away, STATE VS. GUDDU SHEIKH 3/8 FIR NO. 148/00 but they were able to apprehend all the accused persons. He alongwith HC Randhir Singh apprehended one person namely Guddu Sheikh. His casual search was conducted by HC Randhir Singh. On his casual search from his right side pant dub, one button actuated knife was recovered and from his shirt pocket one ustra was recovered. IO HC Randhir Singh prepared the sketch of the knife and ustra vide Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B respectively. The recovered case property was reduced into pullanda and sealed with the seal of RSL. The seal after use was handed over to him. The pullanda was seized vide separate memo. The seizure memo with respect to knife is Ex. PW3/C. The ustra was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/D. IO prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him. He got the case registered. 1st IO handed over the custody of accused, recovered case property and prepared documents to the second IO. The second IO prepared the site plan at the instance of first IO Ex. PW2/A. The second IO formally arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/B. The personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/C. The case property was deposited to the Malkhana and the accused was sent to lockup. IO recorded his statement.
7. That on 09.08.2012 the prosecution evidence was closed as matter being pending since 2000 as the prosecution failed to produce all the material witnesses despite opportunities. That on 12.09.2012 the statement of accused was recorded and he denied all the allegations levelled against him. He preferred not to lead defence evidence.
STATE VS. GUDDU SHEIKH 4/8 FIR NO. 148/00
8. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused and gone through the record. The accused has been charged u/s 25 Arms Act for the possession of one button actuated knife and one ustra, without any license or permit and in contravention of Delhi Administration Notification.
9. The only material recovery witness who has been examined by the prosecution is PW3. The other material witnesses namely SI Mahesh Kasana and Inspector Heera Lal who were leading the raiding party were not even named as witnesses for the reason best known to the prosecution. The medical of the accused was got conducted vide MLC No. 4066 which shows the noting given by doctor as alleged accused being arrested for theft which is against the story of the prosecution. Further no sincere effort was made by recovery witness PW3 or by IO Inspector Heera Lal for joining the public persons as witnesses from the spot as is clear from the testimony of PW2 and PW3. The PW2 in his cross examination stated that he made no effort to join the public persons in the proceedings after the investigation was handed over to him. Admittedly, the recovery has been effected in the night on a busy Outer Ring Road. In these circumstances the testimony of PW3 can not be termed as reliable and the explanation given for non joining of the public witnesses to the proceedings cannot be believed. The possibility of the misuse of the seal also can not be ruled out as the seal was handed over to PW3 himself was the part of the raiding party and not to any independent person. The link evidence in the form of register No. 19 has also not been proved. The above said facts STATE VS. GUDDU SHEIKH 5/8 FIR NO. 148/00 creates doubt with respect to recovery effected from the accused.
10.It is also admitted fact that the documents Ex. PW3/C and Ex. PW3/D were prepared prior to registration of FIR. The perusal of the same shows that documents have FIR No. upon then. This issue of FIR no. on the documents prepared before registration of FIR came up before the Hon'ble Delhi HC in the case titled as Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Admn 1987 CC Cases 585 wherein Hon'ble High Court observed that the mention of FIR number on the recovery memo which was prepared prior to lodging of FIR creates a doubt and the benefit should go to the accused. In the present case in hand also no explanation has been offered as to the presence of FIR No. on both seizure memos Ex. PW3/C and Ex. PW3/D respectively. This fact also creates a doubt on the prosecution version.
11.The last factor which needs to be considered is about the presence of material witness namely PW3 Manoj Kumar alongwith SI Mahesh Kasana, SI Sharad Kohli, HC Mohd. Iqbal, HC Ashok, HC Suresh, HC Randhir Singh, Ct. Arjun, Ct. Anil, Ct. Ravi Dutt, Ct. Rajinder Singh, Inspector Heera Lal, Ct. Man Singh at the spot. But the prosecution has failed to file any DD entry which could show their presence at the spot. The duty roaster and the DD entries regarding departure or arrival have also not been filed. This fact assumes significance when seen in the context that all the material witnesses are police officials only. Hence, their presence at the spot should have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. All these facts create doubt in the case of STATE VS. GUDDU SHEIKH 6/8 FIR NO. 148/00 prosecution.
12.It is a cardinal principal of criminal law that the prosecution has to prove their case against accused beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused. All these facts leads to one conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove their case against the accused.
In view of the same, accused Guddu Skeikh is acquitted u/s 25 Arms Act. Bail bond and surety bond stands discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open court)
Dated: 19.12.2013 (GAGANDEEP SINGH)
MM07/CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI : DELHI
STATE VS. GUDDU SHEIKH
7/8
FIR NO. 148/00
CC/FIR No. 148/00
P.S. TIMAR PUR
STATE VS. GUDDU SHEIKH
19.12.2013
Present: Ld. APP Sh. M A Khan for the State.
Accused from JC with Ld. counsel.
Final arguments heard.
Vide my separate detailed judgment of the even date accused is acquitted for the offence u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act. At this stage, accused wishes to adopt the bail bond and surety bond already furnished for the purpose of Section 437A of Cr.PC. The bail bond and surety bond already furnished by the accused is accepted for the purposes of Section 437A of Cr.PC. It shall remain valid for period of six months from today. Original documents returned as per rules.
Accused be released from JC, if not wanted in any other case. File be consigned to Record Room.
(GAGANDEEP SINGH) MM07/CENTRAL/DELHI 19.12.2013 STATE VS. GUDDU SHEIKH 8/8 FIR NO. 148/00