Delhi District Court
In Re: State vs Sahid Ahmed on 10 September, 2012
IN THE COURT GAURAV RAO: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: SOUTH
DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
In Re: STATE VERSUS SAHID AHMED
F.I.R. No: 332/04
U/s 25 Arms Act
P.S. Defence Colony
Date of Institution of Case : 26.06.2004
Date of Judgment Reserved for : 10.09.2012
Date of Judgment : 10.09.2012
JUDGMENT:
(a) The serial no. of the case : 132/2/04
(b) The date of commission of offence : 17.06.2004
(c) The name of complainant :Ct. Krishan Kumar
(d) The name, parentage of accused : Sahid Ahmed s/o Munne
Khan, R/o C120, Subhash Camp,
Dakshin Puri, New Delhi.
Present Address :As above
(e) The offence complained of : 25 Arms Act
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Acquitted
(h) The date of such order : 10.09.2012
FIR No.332/04 State Vs. Shahid Ahmed 1/9
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2004 at about 6.30 pm at bus stand, Anand Lok, Siri Fort Road, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Defence Colony, accused Sahid Amhed was found in possession of one buttonar knife without any permit or license for the same and in contravention of the notification issued by the Delhi Administration and thus thereby the accused committed offence punishable u/s 25 of Arms Act 1959.
2. Charge sheet filed in the court and in compliance of Section 207 accused was supplied the documents. Thereafter vide orders dated 30.09.2004 charge u/s 25 of Arms Act 1959 was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined three witnesses, thereafter the PE in the matter was closed and the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he claimed himself to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case. A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
4. PW1 HC Ajay Kumar deposed that on 17.06.2004 he was posted as DO at PS Defence Colony and on that day at about 08.15 pm on receipt of rukka through Ct. Krishan sent by HC Ramesh he recorded the case FIR i.e. Ex.
FIR No.332/04 State Vs. Shahid Ahmed 2/9 PW1/A and made endorsement on the rukka i.e. Ex. PW1/B.
5. PW2 Const. Krishan Kumar deposed that on 17.06.2004, he was posted as Constable at PS Defence Colony and he was on patrolling duty in the area of Anand Lok, Sadiq Nagar, Srifort Road and at about 06.30 pm, when he reached at bus stand Anand Lok he saw a bus standing at the bus stand and accused was getting down from the bus and at the same time passengers were shouting chor chor. He deposed that he immediately caught hold of the accused and he conducted the casual search of the accused and one buttondar knife was recovered from the right side pocket of his pant. The name of the accused was disclosed as Shahid Ahmed. He deposed that he informed the Duty officer and from there HC Ramesh came to the spot. He deposed that he handed over the accused along with recovered knife to him. He deposed that IO recorded his statement, which is Ex. PW2/A. He deposed that on which he prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR and after registration of case at PS he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR, which is Ex. PW1/A along with original rukka to the IO. He deposed that IO prepared the sketch of knife, which is Ex. PW2/B and seized the knife by putting the seal of RC and the seizure memo is Ex. PW2/C. Seal after use was handed over to him. He deposed that IO prepared the site plan in his presence which is Ex. PW2/D. He deposed that accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/E and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW2/F. He deposed that IO recorded his supplementary statement u/s 161 Cr.P.c. at the spot.
FIR No.332/04 State Vs. Shahid Ahmed 3/9 This witness correctly identified the case property i.e. knife as Ex.P1.
6. During his cross examination he stated that he was alone on patrolling duty. He denied the suggestion that the entire proceedings were conducted at the PS. He denied the suggestion that the accused was lifted from his house and the knife was planted upon him. He stated that he made DD entry but he does not know the number of the same. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in this case. He denied the suggestion that the recovery has been planted upon the accused. He admitted that neither the bus passenger nor conductor nor the driver were made a witness by the IO. He stated that he cannot tell the bus/route number. He admitted that public persons were coming and going at the place of recovery. He admitted that no public person has been cited as a witness. He voluntarily stated that nobody agreed to become a witness and they left without disclosing their name and addresses. He admitted that no notice was served upon those who refused to join the investigation. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
7. PW3 HC Ramesh Chand deposed that on 17.06.2004 he was posted as Head Constable at PS Defence Colony and on that day on receipt of DD entry no. 42B he reached the spot i.e. Anand Lok Bus stand, Siri Fort road, New Delhi where Ct. Krishan handed over the accused along with recovered knife and relevant documents to him. He further deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW2.
FIR No.332/04 State Vs. Shahid Ahmed 4/9
8. I have heard the arguments advanced at bar by the accused as also learned APP and have carefully gone through the evidence recorded in the matter and the documents placed on record by the prosecution in this case.
9. After going through the rival contentions as well as the evidence led by the prosecution and the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused.
10. Despite availability the police officials failed to join the public witness and the explanation given that they were asked but they refused to join the investigation/arrest and seizure of weapon from the accused does not inspire much confidence. I have perused the site plan Ex. PW2/D, the spot/place of arrest/recovery is shown at Anand Lok Bus stand, New Delhi on the busy Siri Fort stretch/road with a market/shopping complex and Kamla Nehru College situated nearby/adjacent to the spot. Admittedly, numerous public persons were also present at the time of alleged arrest of the accused. It is beyond my contemplation that the police official could not find any public person at the spot to join in the investigation despite the fact that it was a very busy place and admittedly public persons were available. If indeed public persons refused to join the proceedings action ought to have been taken against them as per the Code of Criminal Procedure. But no efforts were made to do the same. It is yet another typical story of requesting the public persons to join and their refusal.
FIR No.332/04 State Vs. Shahid Ahmed 5/9
11. In fact as per the allegations at the time when the accused was apprehended by Cont. Krishan he was alighting from a bus and the bus passengers were shouting "chor chor". However when grilled during cross examination Const. Krishan failed to give the number of bus or name of the driver/conductor or any passenger of the bus. If indeed the accused had alighted from the bus and public was shouting "chor chor" then those public persons ought to have been joined in the investigation. Not doing to itself cast serious doubts upon the prosecution case.
12. In the case titled as Jagdish Raj Jaggi v. State, (Delhi) 1987(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 1 which was also the case under Arms Act, while acquitting the accused due to absence/ nonjoining of public witness the Court observed as under:
"The question is not whether the testimony of police officers should or should not be approached with a suspicion. The question is of being conscious of an inherent danger that is involved in relying upon the evidence of police officers only unless it is supported by some corroborative evidence or unless circumstances of the case sufficiently lend assurance to the court that all that is being stated by the police officers is correct. Normally speaking when a raid of this kind is arranged one should expect the police officer to involve independent witnesses. In this case the court is told that an effort was made but nobody came FIR No.332/04 State Vs. Shahid Ahmed 6/9 forward. It has been my unfortunate experience that this explanation is now being tendered in almost all cases. Normal rule is the involvement of public witnesses and if that is not followed it must be sufficiently explained as to why it was not so".
13. Similar observation was made by the Hon'ble Apex court in Sans Pal Singh v. State of Delhi, (SC) 1999 A.I.R. (SC) 49.
14. I have also gone through the observations made in ''1990 CCC 3'', titled as ''Roop Chand V/s State of Haryana'' wherein it was held as under:
''When some witness from the public was available then the explanation furnished by the prosecution that they refused to join the investigation is wholly unsatisfactory, particularly when the IO did not note down the names and addresses and did not take any action against them''.
15. In the landmark judgment of Nanak Chand v. State of Delhi, (Delhi) 1992(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 412 while acquitting the accused the Hon'ble High Court Of Delhi observed:
The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially then they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt.
FIR No.332/04 State Vs. Shahid Ahmed 7/9 They have again, churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola.
16. Similar observations were made in case titled as Chitwant Singh v. State of Punjab (SC) 1999 A.I.R (SC) 1606, Nachhattar Singh v. State of Punjab (P&H) (DB) 2003 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 68 as well as State of Punjab V. Gurdeep Singh (P&H) (DB) 1993 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 121.
17. It has been observed by Hon'ble High Court in ''Pawan Kumar V/s Delhi Administration 1987 C.C cases 585 (HC)'' that:
"It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the IO should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witness. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of knife from the person of accused."
18. The deposition of the prosecution witnesses did not inspire confidence also on account of fact that (1) they failed to prove the departure and the arrival entry at the PS and ( 2) the seal remained with the police officials and in fact remained with alleged recovery witness. Hence, the case property being tempered cannot be ruled out. Reliance may be placed in this regard upon the law laid down in Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) FIR No.332/04 State Vs. Shahid Ahmed 8/9 452 and Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa (2005) 9 SCC 773.
19. All these contradiction casts serious doubts on the prosecution story.
20. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt. Accused is accordingly entitled for acquittal.
21. I order accordingly.
Announced in the open (Gaurav Rao) Court on 10.09.2012 MM (South)/Delhi. FIR No.332/04 State Vs. Shahid Ahmed 9/9 F.I.R. No:332/04 U/s 25 Arms Act P.S. Defence Colony 10.09.2012 Pr: Ld. APP for state.
Accused is present on bail along with his counsel.
Witness HC Ramesh Chand is present and he has been examined, cross examined and discharged as PW 3.
Record reveals that all/material prosecution witnesses have been examined. Accordingly, PE stands closed.
Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused has been recorded. He has claimed innocence however, he does not want to lead any defence evidence.
Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Shivaji Shukla (LAC) has submitted that he is ready with the final arguments.
Final arguments heard.
Vide my separate judgment announced today in the open court, accused has been acquitted of the charges in the present case.
Bail bond cancelled, surety discharged, endorsement if any be cancelled, original documents be returned as per rules and procedure.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Gaurav Rao)
MM01 (SD)/N. Delhi
10.09.2012
FIR No.332/04 State Vs. Shahid Ahmed 10/9