Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Azad Sheikh on 12 January, 2009
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
FIR NO. 347/07
U/S 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS:Bawana
State Vs Mohd. Azad Sheikh
Date of Institution of case : 07/07/07
Date of Judgment reserved:12/01/2009
Date of which Judgment pronounced:12/01/2009
JUDGMENT
Sl. No of case :348/3
Date of commission of offence :23/06/07
Name of the complainant :HC Ram Niwas
Name and address of accused :Mohd. Azad Sheikh
S/o Hader Sheikh
R/o Jhuggi no. E-1865 J.J. Colony,
Gali no. 4, Bawana, Delhi.
Offence complained of :25/54/59 Arms Act
Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty
Date of order :12/01/2009
Final order :Acquitted
BRIEF REASONS
1. By this judgment I shall dispose off the challan as has been sent by SHO, PS Bawana against the accused Mohd. Azad Sheikh on the ground that he on 23/06/07 at about 8:00 p.m was found to be in possession of buttondar knife in contravention to the notification of D.D.A and as such he thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and SHO after completing investigation has filed the challan for the disposal of the same in accordance with law.
2. After filing the challan and after supplying the copies to the accused the charge was framed against him on 23/07/07 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, opportunity was given to the prosecution to prove acquisation against the accused. Accordingly, prosecution examined PW1 HC Suresh Kumar, PW2 Azimuddin, PW3 HC Mahender Singh, PW4 Ct. Jitender & PW5 HC Ram Niwas.
3. PW5 HC Ram Niwas is the witness of initial recovery and he had deposed that on 23/06/07, he was on patrolling duty and at about 6:05 p.m, he received information that one young boy aged about 20 yrs is standing near Goal Chakar, DSIDC Bawana intending to comit some crime. He asked 4/5 passers by to join the raiding party and only one person agreed to join the raiding party. He including Ct. Jitender, Ajimuddin and secret informer left for Goal Chakar and reached there at about 6:15 p.m. where secret informer signaled towards young boy who was standing near Ganga Toli Mandir Road, near Gol Chakkar & he was apprehended. On his search, one Buttondar knife was recovered from the left side dub of his pant. Thereafter, he prepared sketch, which is Ex. PW2/A. On measurement total length of the knife found as 24cm, length of the blade 11.5 cm, length of handle 12.05 cm and maximum width of blade of knife was 2.5 cm. Blade was made of iron & said knife was put in a white cloth and sealed with the seal of RN. Thereafter, he prepared seizure memo Ex. PW2/B & IO prepared rukka Ex. PW5/A and handed over the same to Ct. Jitender & FIR was registered. Thereafter, accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted.
4. Similar is the deposition of PW2 who was accompanied by this IO.
PW2 is another material witness and who is a public witness also. He has deposed that he is a resident of 246 B, Inraj Colony, Bawana, Delhi & on 23/06/07, he was going through Ganga Tolly Mandir Road, DSIDC, Bawana at about 6:30 p.m, when a police officer the name & rank of whom, he didn't remember, told him that they had recovered a knife from one person and requested him to join the investigation upon which he joined the investigation. IO prepared sketch of a knife in his presence and IO sent a constable to PS for resgistration of the case and who came back to the spot with another police officer. Accused was arrested in his presence and statement was recorded. In cross examination, he denied that knife was not recovered from the possession of the accused or he had not joined the investigation.
5. PW3 is a second IO of the case who had deposed that after receiving the copy of FIR & original rukka, he thereafter accompanied Ct. Jitender to the spot at Ganga Tolly Mandir Road, DSIDC, Bawana where Ram Niwas met him & handed over the accused with case property. One public person Azimuddin was also present there. He prepared site plan & interrogated the accused & thereafter he recorded the statement. After completion of investigation, prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court through SHO.
6. After the completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was U/S 281 Cr.P.C was recorded in which the accused has submitted that he is innocent. He further stated that he does not want to lead any evidence in his defence.
7. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
8. There is a basic contradiction in the testimony of PW2 & PW5. PW5 deposed that he alongwith Ajimuddin & secret informer reached the spot & apprehended the accused and on the search of accused one buttonder knife was recovered from the left side dub of his pant. Whereas, PW2 deposed that when he was going through Ganga Tolly Mandir Road, DSIDC, Bawana, one police officer told him that he had recovered a knife & requested him to join investigation. This is the major contradiction in between the testimony of PW2 & PW5 as the deposition of PW5 is to the extent that the knife was recovered in the presence of public witness PW2 whereas, PW2 deposed that recovery had already been effected. Therefore, one fact is clear that one of the witness is not stating correct fact. In alternative, one of the witness was not present at the time of search of accused. This itself makes the recovery doubtful and if PW2 is believed then there was no recovery in the presence of any public witness & if PW5 is believed, PW2 was present at the relevant time of recovery. Apart from his fact, there is no other witness of initial recovery.
9. The situation therefore is clear that there was no public persons joined in the investigation and there were only police personnel at the time of recovery of knife. The law is well settled that although the testimony of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are polic officials, yet in the absence of any public witness and in absence of any coraboration with respet to material particulars the testimony of the police officials have to be appreciated with great caution.
10. Therefore, the public witness who has joined the investigation is not supporting the present case. The benefit of this goes to the accused. All these facts & circumstances show that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. Bail bond of accused cancelled and surety discharged. Endoresement if any be cancelled. Documents if any be returned. File be consigned to Record Room.
(SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Court, Delhi.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURTS TODAY i.e on 12th January, 2009.