Delhi District Court
State vs . Pawan Kumar @ Monu on 19 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SOUTH EAST-03, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Pawan Kumar @ Monu
FIR NO: 718/07
P. S. Kalkaji
ID no. 02403R0624182007
Date of institution of case : 05.09.2007
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 19.07.2012
Date of judgment : 19.07.2012
Advocates appearing in the case :
Sh. Manish Kumar, Ld. APP for State
Sh. Mohd. Talat, Ld. Counsel for accused
JUDGEMENT U/s 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Date of offence : 18.07.2007
b) Offence complained of : U/s 25 Arms Act
c) Name of complainant : Ct. Rameshwar
d) Name of accused, his parentage, : Pawan Kumar @ Monu
local & permanent residence S/o Sh. Ram Suresh Pandey
R/o Jhuggi no. B-41, Transit
Camp, Govindpuri
New Delhi
e) Plea of accused : He is falsely implicated.
f) Final order : He is acquitted
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. In the present case, accused Pawan Kumar @ Monu has been charged for offence u/s 25 Arms for recovery of buttondar knife without any licence at public place in contravention of Delhi Administration Notification, on 18.07.2007 at about 8:15 pm at R.D. Marg, near Giri Nagar Masjid, Kalkaji, within jurisdiction of PS Kalkaji. Prosecution has examined three witnesses on its behalf.
FIR No. 718/07 PS Kalkaji State vs. Pawan Kumar @ Monu Page 1 of 4
2. PW1 is HC Nathu Lal and PW2 Ct. Rameshwar Dayal who stated that on 18.07.2007, they were on patrolling duty at R.D. Marg, Giri Nagar masjid and at about 8:15 pm, they saw one person coming from R.D. Marg towards Giri Nagar and on suspicion apprehended and on his cursory search, one buttondar knife was recovered, therefore, information was sent to PP and IO HC Iqbal Ahmad came at the spot and conducted further investigation. PW3 exhibited sketch of knife as Ex.PW1/A and seizure memo of knife as Ex.PW1/B and arrest memo and personal search memo of accused as Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. PW2 is Ct. Rameshwar Dayal who deposed on same lines as PW1 and his evidence is not repeated for sake of brevity.
3. PW2 is IO HC Iqbal Ahmed who stated that on receipt of DD no. 26, reached at the spot and met with Ct. Rameshwar and Ct. Nathu and there he handed him over the accused Pawan Kumar @ Monu with one buttondar knife and recorded statement of Ct. Rameshwar which is Ex.PW2/A and made endorsement on it as Ex.PW3/B and sent Ct. Nathu for registration of FIR. PW3 prepared site plan at the instance of Ct. Nathu Lal and Ct. Rameshwar as Ex.PW3/A. The witnesses correctly identified the accused and case property in court.
4. After closure of PE, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused did not lead any defence evidence, hence final arguments were heard today and case was kept for order for today itself. BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF.
After hearing final arguments and after perusal of case file, this FIR No. 718/07 PS Kalkaji State vs. Pawan Kumar @ Monu Page 2 of 4 court is of the opinion that though the prosecution has tried to prove the case by bringing technically all the evidence on record, however, all the PWs have failed to give satisfactory reply why public persons were not made witness to the recovery of the weapon though the purported time of arrest of accused was about 8:15 pm and there were many public persons going to and fro near Giri Nagar Masjid, Kalkaji. They did not serve any notice to public persons to become party to the recovery. All this leads to reasonable doubt that recovery may not have been made at the spot as stated in prosecution case or recovery may not have been made from accused at all.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in case of Azim Khan Vs. State 1996 Crl.C.J. 3140 that recovery of case property at a crowded place like bus stand without making public persons as witnesses to recovery raises serious doubt on the very fact of recovery, hence in this case, the accused was acquitted on this ground of failure of police officials to make public persons as necessary witnesses to the recovery. In a similar case of recovery of opium from accused at a bus stand where no public witnesses were joined in the recovery, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled Darshan Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1997 (3)RCR (Crm) 496 set aside the conviction of accused.
Secondly, though the alleged knife seized from accused was sealed in a pullanda but it was never sent to FSL for expert opinion regarding finger prints on the knife, hence in the absence of FSL report, it can not be said that the recovery of knife was made from accused only. The prosecution has to prove each and every case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant conviction of FIR No. 718/07 PS Kalkaji State vs. Pawan Kumar @ Monu Page 3 of 4 accused, but in this case, the very fact of arrest of accused and the fact of seizure of knife from him is shrouded in mystery which has been further aggravated by the omission of IO to send the knife to FSL for report. The omission to make public persons as witness of recovery further creates a reasonable suspicion upon the working of the police officials, whether the knife was recovered from accused at the said place at all or not. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and has failed to plug all the gaps in the story of prosecution and has left many doubts regarding recovery of knife from the possession of accused. Hence, the benefit of doubt in this case is granted to accused. Accused stands acquitted from charge u/s 25 Arms Act on benefit of doubt. Personal bond and surety bond of accused stands discharged. Original documents if any be released to the authorised persons on proper receipt and endorsement if any be cancelled. Case property be destroyed and report be filed. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH )
TODAY ON 19th JULY, 2012 MM-03(SE), NEW DELHI
FIR No. 718/07 PS Kalkaji
State vs. Pawan Kumar @ Monu Page 4 of 4