Delhi District Court
State vs . Tara Chand @ Ravi on 26 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL PAHUJA, MM-04,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. TARA CHAND @ RAVI
FIR NO. 306/17
PS: MIANWALI NAGAR
U/S: 25 ARMS ACT
JUDGMENT
Case no. : 4708/17
Date of commission of offence : 05.07.2017
Date of institution of the case : 21.07.2017
Name of the complainant : Ct. Umed Singh
Name of accused and address : Tarachand @ Ravi S/o
Sh. Radha Krishan, R/o C-
318, Camp no. 2, JJ
Colony, Nangloi, Delhi
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 25 Arms Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date on which reserved for judgment : 26.11.2018
Date of announcing of judgment : 26.11.2018
******************************************************************************************************************************* BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of accused Tara Chand @ Ravi pursuant to charge sheet filed by PS Mianwali Nagar U/s 25 Arms Act subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No. 306/17.FIR No. 306/17, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 1/7
2. As per the prosecution, on 05.07.2017 Ct. Umed Singh was on patrolling duty. At about 06.00 PM he left the PS on his motorcycle and when reached at Rohtak road near Peer Baba Majar, the accused Tara Chand on seeing him in police uniform turn from his way in a speedy manner and on suspicion Ct. Umed Singh moved towards the accused and apprehended him. On checking one button actuated knife was recovered from his possession which was kept by him in his right side pocket of his trouser in contravention of provision of Arms Act 1959.
Accordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against the accused U/s 25 Arms Act.
3. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. After hearing arguments, charge for offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, the matter was posted for prosecution evidence. The prosecution got examined two witnesses in support of its case.
5. PW1 Ct. Umed Singh deposed that on 05.07.2017 he was deputed to perform patrolling duty and at about 06.00 PM when he reached at Rohtak Road near Peer Baba Majar, the accused Tara Chand @ Ravi on seeing PW1 in police uniform turn from his way in a speedy manner and on suspicion PW1 moved towards the present accused and he was apprehended after chasing him at a distance of 10-15 feets. After his apprehension the present accused was searched as he was under the influence of fear and on suspicion when he was checked one button actuated knife was recovered which was kept by him in his trouser right side pocket. It is stated that after the recovery the said information was given to the concerned duty officer and on this information IO HC Mahender Singh came at the spot as the investigation of the present case was entrusted to him. It is further stated that when IO reached at the spot, FIR No. 306/17, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 2/7 PW1 handed over the recovered button actuated knife and the custody of present accused to the IO. Afterwards, IO recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/A and on the same a rukka/tehrir was prepared and handed over to PW1 for registration of FIR. The sketch memo of the knife is Ex. PW1/B. The said knife was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. At the spot the site plan was prepared which is Ex. PW1/D. In continuation to the proceedings, the present accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW1/E and Ex PW1/F respectively. The disclosure statement of present accused was also recorded by the IO which is Mark X1. This witness correctly identified the accused Tara Chand @ Ravi. This witness correctly identified the case property i.e. button actuated knife as Ex. P1. PW1 was cross-examined on behalf of accused.
6. PW2 HC Mahender was the IO of the case, who deposed qua the manner and his involvement in the investigation. This witness relied upon several documents which are already exhibited on record in the testimony of PW1 Ct. Umed Singh. This witness exhibited on record rukka/tehrir as Ex. PW2/A and marked the disclosure statement of accused as Mark X-1 . After completion of investigation PW2 filed the charge sheet. This witness was cross examined on behalf of accused.
7. During trial, accused admitted the FIR no. 306/17 dated 05.07.2017 along with certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, DD no. 38A and 44A dated 05.07.2017. The same are Ex. X1 to Ex. X4 respectively.
8. No other material witness left to be examined, thus PE was closed on 25.09.2018.
9. Thereafter, statement of accused U/s 281 Cr.P.C was recorded in which all incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against accused was put to him to which he stated that he is innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused did not lead any defence evidence.
FIR No. 306/17, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 3/710. Arguments addressed by defence counsel and Ld. APP have been heard and record has been perused.
11. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution. Also, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to be acquitted.
12. After considering respective arguments and evidence led by prosecution, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused deserves acquittal on following grounds:-
13. Firstly, no DD entry has been proved on record by prosecution in order to show that PW1 Ct. Umed Singh was on patrolling duty on the day of alleged recovery of illicit liquor from the accused. It is an important missing link in the version of prosecution. As per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, which is reproduced as under;
"Chapter 22 rule 49 Matters to be entered in Register no. II. The following matters shall amongst others, be entered:-
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty.
This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
FIR No. 306/17, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 4/7Note:- The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No.II is maintained.
14. In view of this rule, while deposing none of the prosecution witnesses has told that by what entry in the register no.II, they were patrolling in the particular area. In the present case also this provision has not been complied with by the prosecution witnesses. The relevant entries regarding the arrival and departure of the police officials has not been proved on record. In Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that:
"if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the Courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
15. Apart from this, his presence at the spot is not proved. If he has departed from PS for patrolling duty the entry to this effect must exist in the Roznamancha but that has not been proved, raising an adverse presumption against the prosecution U/s 114 (g) of the Evidence Act that if the said Roznamancha had been produced it would have not shown his departure as all.
16. Further, no public witness has been joined in the investigation. PW2 HC Mahender Singh in his examination in chief & cross examination and PW1 Ct. Umed Singh in his cross examination have stated that public FIR No. 306/17, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 5/7 persons were asked to join the proceedings but none agreed, however, no written notice was given to any such public person and even their names or other particulars were not recorded, which shows that sincere efforts were not made by the police officials to join the public persons. Non joining of public witnesses also causes a dent in credibility of prosecution version. Had public witnesses witnessed search of accused, prosecution version would have been more authentic. This is not to say that testimony of police officials is not reliable but addition of public witnesses before search of accused would have made prosecution version more reliable. Failure on the part of the police officials to make sincere effort to join public witnesses for the proceedings when they may be available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution story in view of the following case law. In the case of Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."
17. Since all the witnesses are police personnels and the necessary safeguards in the investigation have not been followed by the investigating officer, I am of the view that chances of false implication cannot be ruled FIR No. 306/17, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 6/7 out at the instance of the police.
18. Further, as per the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the seal after use on the pullinda containing case property allegedly recovered from the accused was given to none else but to PW1 Ct. Umed Singh, who himself was recovery witness, who apprehended the accused. Such material witness of a case is always interested in the success of the case of the prosecution and keeping in view this fact, the chances of fabrication & planting of the case property cannot be ruled out beyond reasonable doubt. Further, no DD entry of handing over or returning of seal has been proved on record.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to successfully build the case against the accused. As there are material discrepancies in the prosecution case, it is a fit case in which benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Accused is thus entitled to benefit of doubt and is accordingly acquitted for offence U/s 25 Arms Act.
20. Requirement of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. has been complied with. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed VISHAL by VISHAL
PAHUJA
PAHUJA Date: 2018.11.26
16:36:45 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL PAHUJA)
COURT ON 26.11.2018 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 7 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
Digitally signedVISHAL by VISHAL PAHUJA PAHUJA Date: 2018.11.26 16:36:50 +0530 (VISHAL PAHUJA) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 306/17, PS Mianwali Nagar Page 7/7