Delhi District Court
State vs Kannu on 8 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 07, (CENTRAL), ROOM NO. 137,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
STATE
VERSUS
KANNU
FIR No. 15/07
P.S.: RMD
U/S: 25/54/59 Arms Act.
1. Serial No. of the case : 02401R0134792007
2. Date of commission of offence : 16.01.2007
3. Name of the Complainant : HC VED PRAKASH,
No. 53/DPP
PS RMD, Delhi.
4. Name of the accused, and KANNU,
his parentage and residence : S/o Sh. Surji,
R/o Village Garhi Daulatpur,
PP Gengeru, PS Kandhala, Dist
Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh.
5. Date when judgment : 08.05.2014
was reserved
6. Date when Judgment : 08.05.2014
was pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : Section 25/54/59 Arms Act.
or proved
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
9. Final Judgment : Accused acquitted for the
offence punishable U/s 25/54/
59 Arms Act.
FIR No. 15/07
PS- RMD
State Vs. Kannu page 1 of 8
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case:
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 16.01.2007 at about 3.30 pm at near the stairs of W.P Hall, RMD within the jurisdiction of PS RMD, accused was found from the possession of a buttondar knife which on measuring found to be in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration. Accordingly, FIR No. 15/07, PS RMD U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act was registered against the accused. Challan was filed on 31.01.2007.
2. After hearing arguments, charge U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was put up for prosecution evidence.
3. Prosecution has examined five witnesses namely PW1 Ct Krishan Pal, PW2 HC Udaiveer, PW3 HC Ved Prakash, PW4 Sh. D.K Mishra, UDC, Home Department, GNCTD and PW5 ASI Rohtas to prove the case of the prosecution. The evidence of each witness is very relevant and will be discussed at later stages.
4. After the Prosecution evidence was closed, the statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating evidence were put to him wherein he denied that buttondar knife was recovered from his possession and stated that he was falsely implicated. Since, no defence evidence was led, final arguments were heard.
5. Ld APP for the State has argued that all the witnesses have supported the version of the prosecution and the case has been proved beyond doubts against the accused and prays for conviction of the accused.
FIR No. 15/07
PS- RMD
State Vs. Kannu page 2 of 8
6. On the other hand, Ld counsel for the accused submits that accused has been falsely implicated in the case and case property was planted upon the accused and prays for acquittal.
7. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
7.1 PW1 stated that on 16.01.2007 he alongwith HC Ved Prakash were on patrolling duty near WT Hall, RMD and at about 3pm while they were checking luggage of passengers at DFMD, one person came and on being signaled to go towards DFMD, he started running but was apprehended near the stairs of WT hall. He further stated that on cursory search, one buttondar knife was recovered from right side pocket of kurta of accused. He also stated his presence at the time of preparation of sketch of buttondar knife vide Ex. PW1/A and its seizure vide Ex. PW1/B. He stated that seal after use was handed over to him and thereafter, IO prepared rukk and got the FIR registered through him. He also stated his presence at the time of arrest and personal search of accused vide Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D. PW1 identified the case property as being recovered from the possession of accused. During cross examination, he stated that HC Ved Prakash conducted the cursory search of accused and he do not remember the colour of clothes of accused. He failed to state as to when he returned the seal to the IO. He further stated that second IO himself reached the spot and no statement of public persons were recorded and no finger print were obtained. He stated that he signed certain papers but failed to tell the number. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and all the writing work was done at the police station.FIR No. 15/07
PS- RMD State Vs. Kannu page 3 of 8 7.2 PW2 proved the registration of FIR vide Ex. PW2/A and endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW2/B. 7.3 PW3 is the first IO and deposed after refreshing his memory by going through his statement. He also gave his testimony on the lines of PW1 till arrest and personal search of accused. He further stated that he prepared tehrir vide Ex. PW3/A and got FIR registered through Ct Krishan Pal. He further stated that after registration of FIR, Ct Krishan Pal came alongwith HC Rohtas and he produced the sketch of knife, seizure memo, pullanda of knife and accused before HC Rohtas who prepared site plan at his instance. He also identified the knife recovered from the possession of the accused. During cross examination he stated that he do not remember vide which entry he left the police station. He also stated that there were many public persons but he did not recorded their statements as none agreed to participate in the investigation and left the spot after citing their reason and without disclosing their names and addresses. He further stated that he measured the knife with steel make scale but did not take any chanceprint from the knife and seal after use was handed over to Ct Krishan Pal but fail to recall when same was handed over to him. He further stated that Ct Krishan Pal came back at the spot at about 5.30pm after registration of FIR. He denied the suggestion that no knife was recovered from the possession of the accused and accused has been falsely implicated. 7.4 PW4 proved the original notification issued by Delhi Administration vide Ex. PW4/A. 7.5 PW5 is the second IO. He stated about on receipt of information, FIR No. 15/07 PS- RMD State Vs. Kannu page 4 of 8 he reach the spot WP Hall, RMD where HC Ved Prakash met and handed over him accused and case property and in the meantime Ct Krishan Pal also came and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He further stated that he prepared site plan vide Ex. PW5/A at the instance of HC Ved Prakash and arrested and personally searched the accused. During cross examination he stated that firstly he prepared site plan at the instance of HC Ved Prakash and at that time public persons were present but they did not joined the investigation and no notice was served upon them. He further stated that at the time of arrest of accused, he alongwith Ct Krishan Pal were present but fail to recollect as to how many documents were prepared by him at the spot. He denied the suggestion that all the writing work was done in the Police Station and not at the spot and he is deposing falsely.
8. 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. Note:The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is FIR No. 15/07 PS- RMD State Vs. Kannu page 5 of 8 maintained.
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. The relevant entries regarding the arrival and departure of the police officials has not been proved on record.
It has been held in Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi Hgih Court held that;
"wherein it has been observed 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."
9. Absence of Independent Witnesses: PW3 stated that public persons were present but they did not join investigation and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. On the other hand PW5 stated that public persons were present but none joined the investigation and no notice was served upon them. There is no explanation why the names and addresses of such public persons were not noted by them and why the statutory compliance of notice were not given to them.
FIR No. 15/07
PS- RMD
State Vs. Kannu page 6 of 8
9.1 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.......".
10. MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES: PW1 stated that second IO came to spot all alone whereas PW2 stated that second IO came alongwith PW1 at the spot. PW1 stated that only PW3 conducted search of the accused whereas PW3 stated that both PW1 and PW3 conducted search of the accused whereupon the said alleged recovery was effected. PW4 stated that he alone came at the spot and Ct Krishan reached separately which is in contradictions of statement of PW2.
10.1 Eventhough, it has come on record that case property which is buttondar knife having length in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration but whether same was recovered from the possession of the accused is doubtful as neither there is any eye witness of recovery of alleged knife nor any eye witness of arrest of alleged accused. Moreover, there is contradictions in testimonies of witnesses which signal that either they were not present at the spot or they have not joined investigation at the spot at all. There is not handing over memo of seal by which case property was sealed. Therefore, there are ample doubts created by prosecution witnesses and the benefit of doubt FIR No. 15/07 PS- RMD State Vs. Kannu page 7 of 8 must go to the accused.
11. Accordingly, accused Kannu is acquitted for the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act. Bail bond stands cancelled. Surety is discharged. Endorsement if any be cancelled. Documents, if any be released. Case property be disposed off/confiscated after period of expiry of appeal.
Put up for furnishing bail bond in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C on 23.05.2015.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT) COURT ON 08.05.2014 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07 TIS HAZARI COURTS (CENTRAL) DELHI.
FIR No. 15/07
PS- RMD
State Vs. Kannu page 8 of 8