Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepak @ Raghubir on 21 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. AAKASH SHARMA, MM-08,
WEST DISTRICT, ROOM NO. 30, THC, DELHI.
FIR No. : 386/18
U/s : 25/54/59 Arms Act
P.S. : Mianwali Nagar
State Vs. Deepak @ Raghubir
JUDGMENT:
a) CNR No. : DLWT02-015666-2018
b) Sl. No. of the Case : 8189/18
c) Name & address of the : Ct. Anil
complainant No. 2671/OD
PS Mianwali Nagar
d) Name & address of : Deepak @ Raghubir
accused S/o Sh. Ram Chander
R/o Jhuggi No. N-17/A-120,
Patthar wala Bagh, J J
Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi.
e) Date of Commission of :26.09.2018
offence
f) Offence complained off : U/s 25(1B)(b) Arms Act
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Final Order : Acquitted
i) Date of such order : 21.12.2021
Date of Institution : 25.10.2018
Final arguments heard on : 21.12.2021
Judgment Pronounced on : 21.12.2021
FIR No: 386/188 State v. Deepak @ Raghubir Page No.1/10
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION: -
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 26.09.2018 at about 10.50 PM in front of Bus stand Janakpuri, Peeragarhi, Outer Ring Road, Sunder Vihar, Delhi accused was found in possession of a buttondar knife as described in seizure memo Mark 'X' and thus committed an offence punishable u/s 25(1B)(b) Arms Act.
2. After investigation, challan for offence U/s 25(1B)(b) Arms Act was filed. Compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C was done.
3. Charge for committing the offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(b) Arms Act was framed against accused on 15.04.2019, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined two witnesses.
5. PW1 Ct. Anil is the complainant who deposed that on 26.09.2018, he alongwith Ct. Virender were on patrolling duty in the area of Park near Raddison Hotel. On that day at about 10.40 pm, one secret informer met him and shared FIR No: 386/188 State v. Deepak @ Raghubir Page No.2/10 one secret information that 3-4 pick pocketers who are involved in pick pocketing were standing at Bus stand, Sunder Vihar and are in possession of stolen articles and if the raid is conducted, they could be apprehended. He deposed that he immediately shared this information of secret informer with the SHO, PS M W Nagar who directed him to form a raiding party and apprehend the accused persons. He further deposed that he alongwith police officials and the secret informer went to the Bus stand, Sunder Vihar and on pointing out of secret informer apprehended three accused persons who revealed their names as Deepak, Anwar and Rohit. He made cursory search of the accused Deepak on which he found one buttondar knife from the left side pocket of the pants worn by the accused and on the right side pocket of the pants of the accused was found one mobile phone. He immediately called the duty officer of PS Mianwali Nagar and asked him to send the IO at the spot. After some time, HC Umesh reached the spot to whom he produced the custody of the FIR No: 386/188 State v. Deepak @ Raghubir Page No.3/10 accused and the recovered buttondar knife and mobile phone. HC Umesh also asked 4-5 public persons but they refused to join the same and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. HC Umesh put the recovered knife on one blank paper and prepared the sketch of the same vide Ex.PW1/A, seized buttondar knife vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. HC Umesh kept the recovered knife on one white cloth and prepared pullanda out of the same and sealed the mouth of the pullanda with the seal of 'UK'. Seal was handed over to him after use. HC Umesh also seized the recovered mobile phone vide Ex.PW1/C. Thereafter, HC Umesh also prepared rukka and handed over the same to PW1 which he took to PS got the case registered and came back with the copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over to HC Umesh. IO prepared the site plan of the spot at his instance vide Ex.PW1/E. IO arrested accused and conducted his personal search and also recorded his disclosure statement vide memos Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/H respectively. MHC(M) produced one white FIR No: 386/188 State v. Deepak @ Raghubir Page No.4/10 colour pullanda with case details written on it which was sealed with the seal of SH. Pulanda was legible and intact and the seal was broken out of which one buttondar knife was taken out. On seeing the said buttondar knife PW1 stated that this is the same buttondar knife which was recovered from the possession of the accused on the date of incident.
6. PW2 HC Umesh, deposed that on 26.09.2018, on receiving DD No. 62B, he reached at the spot and met Ct. Anil and Ct. Virender who produced before him accused Deepak @ Raghubir, one buttondar knife and one mobile phone recovered from his possession. He recorded the statement of Ct. Anil Ex PW1/D and after checking the knife, prepared a sketch Ex PW1/A. HC Umesh further deposed that he prepared a pulanda and sealed it with the seal of UK, seized buttondar knife vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. Seal was handed over to Ct. Anil after use. Thereafter, HC Umesh also prepared rukka Ex. PW2/A and handed over the same to PW1 which he took to PS got the case registered and came back with the copy of FIR and original rukka and FIR No: 386/188 State v. Deepak @ Raghubir Page No.5/10 handed over to him. IO prepared the site plan of the spot at his instance vide Ex.PW1/E. IO arrested accused and conducted his personal search and also recorded his disclosure statement vide memos Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/H respectively. PW2 identified his signatures on the abovesaid Exhibited memos which were shown to him.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating evidence was put to accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C and his explanation was recorded, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence against him and stated that case property was planted upon him. Accused chose not to lead DE.
8. The accused admitted FIR alongwith certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, DD No. 62B dated 26.09.2018 as Ex. A1 - A3
9. I have heard Ld. APP for the State, Ld. Counsel for accused and have carefully gone through the material on record.
FIR No: 386/188 State v. Deepak @ Raghubir Page No.6/10
10. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has 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 benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
11. In "Roop Chand v. State of Haryana" reported in 1990(1) CLR 69, it was observed that such explanations that the public persons refused to join the proceedings are unreliable. In case of "Pradeep Narayana V. State of Maharashtra" AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1930, it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused. Similarly it was held in the case of "Kuldeep Singh V. State of Haryana" 2004(4) RCR 103 and "Passi @ Prakash V. State of Haryana" FIR No: 386/188 State v. Deepak @ Raghubir Page No.7/10
2001(1) RCR 435, that whenever any recovery in connection with the place of the commission of offence is made, public persons must be made witness.
12. From the overall testimony of the witnesses, it is clear that the IO has not joined any public witness at the time of arrest or while completing the formalities despite availability of public persons. There is a possibility that it was a chance recovery. However, at the time and place from where the accused was apprehended and when the formalities were being completed, public persons were admittedly present. Even the IO failed to join any public witness. All the witnesses examined are police witnesses. This casts a doubt about the sincere efforts made by the IO to join independent witnesses.
13. The Section 100(4) CrPC provides that "Before making a search, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness of the search, to attend FIR No: 386/188 State v. Deepak @ Raghubir Page No.8/10 the witness the search and may issued an order in writing to them or any of them so to do".
14. In the case at hand, the above stated provision has not been complied with.
15. It has also been noticed that the sketch memo of knife PW1/A and seizure memo PW1/B and seizure memo of mobile phone PW1/C were prepared before the registration of FIR. When documents are prepared before registration of FIR and it contains the FIR number, an inference has to be drawn that either FIR was recorded prior in time or the documents were prepared later on and in such cases, benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused.
16. In the case at hand, all the lapses in investigation cast a doubt on the very recovery of the knife from the possession of the accused. This court is of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused and has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Deepak @ Raghubir is acquitted of the offence under Section 25(1B)
(b) Arms Act.
FIR No: 386/188 State v. Deepak @ Raghubir Page No.9/10
17. As per section 437-A Cr.P.C accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount.
Dictated & Announced (AAKASH SHARMA)
in Open Court MM-08/West/Delhi
On the 21st day 21.12.2021
of December, 2021
FIR No: 386/188 State v. Deepak @ Raghubir Page No.10/10