Delhi District Court
State vs . Lalit Kumar on 9 August, 2011
State Vs. Lalit Kumar
FIR No.63/06
PS Adarsh Nagar
IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ GAUR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATEIV ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Brief reasons for the judgment in the case with following particulars:
State V/S Lalit Kumar
FIR No. 63/06
PS Adarsh Nagar
U/S 25/54/59 of Arms Act
C/N No. 136/06
Unique ID No. 02404R0290542006
Date of Institution: 10.03.2006
Date of commission of offence 27.01.2006
Name of the Complainant ASI Surender Singh
Name and address of accused Lalit Kumar s/o Sh. Mithan Lal
R/o Gali No. 11, Nathu
Colony, Nathupura, Burari,
Delhi.
Offence complained of U/S 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
Plea of accused pleaded not guilty
Final Order Acquitted
Date of reserve for orders 09.08.2011
Date for announcing the orders 09.08.2011
Brief Facts and pretrial procedure:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.01.2006 ASI Surender C No. 136/06 Unique ID No. 02404R0290542006 Page No. 1 State Vs. Lalit Kumar FIR No.63/06 PS Adarsh Nagar Singh, HC Naresh, Ct. Satish Kumar and Ct. Kirti Kumar were on patrolling duty. During patrolling duty at about 10.30 pm they received secret information that one boy was standing at Bus Stop near Railway Bridge at Ring Road with a button actuated knife to commit an offence. Thereafter, they went to the spot and at the instance of secret informer, apprehended the accused. On casual search of accused, one buttondar Gararidar knife was recovered from the possession of the accused and same was taken into possession. ASI Surender / first IO prepared the rukka, got the case registered. Further investigation was handed over to HC Savinder Singh who arrested the accused, filed the challan and accused was sent up for trial.
2. On the basis of these allegations, charge U/S 25/54/59 of Arms Act was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
C No. 136/06 Unique ID No. 02404R0290542006 Page No. 2
State Vs. Lalit Kumar FIR No.63/06 PS Adarsh Nagar Trial
3. To prove the charges, prosecution examined five witnesses in total whose testimonies are touched upon in brief as under:
(i) PW1 HC Balkishan is a formal witness who being Duty Officer deposed about the registration of FIR and proved the same as Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/B.
(ii) PW2 Ct. Naresh Kumar supported the prosecution case qua investigation part and deposed as discussed in para No. 1 of the Judgment. He deposed about the sketch of the knife which is Ex.PW2/A and seizure memo of knife is Ex.PW2/B. He proved the arrest and personal search memos as Ex.PW2/C & PW2/D respectively. Case property was deposited in Malkhana and accused was put behind the bars.
(iii) PW3 ASI Surender Singh is the first IO in the present case who C No. 136/06 Unique ID No. 02404R0290542006 Page No. 3 State Vs. Lalit Kumar FIR No.63/06 PS Adarsh Nagar deposed that on 27.01.2006 he was on patrolling duty alongwith HC Naresh, Ct. Satish Kumar and Ct. Kirti Kumar at Azadpur near redlight.
At about 10.30 PM a secret information was received through an informer that one boy was standing at Bus stop near Railway Bridge at Ring Road with a button actuated knife to commit an offence. If raid would be conducted he could be apprehended. 4 / 5 passersby were shared with the information and were requested to join the investigation but none agreed. Thereafter, they went to the spot and at the instance of secret informer from some distance that boy i.e. the accused was apprehended. On his casual search, one buttondar Gararidar knife was recovered from right side dub of his wearing pant. Sketch of the knife was prepared by PW3 vide memo Ex.PW 2/A and same was measured and total length of knife was found to be 33.3 CM, length of handle was 18.8 CM, length of blade was 14.5 CM and the width of blade was 2.5 C No. 136/06 Unique ID No. 02404R0290542006 Page No. 4 State Vs. Lalit Kumar FIR No.63/06 PS Adarsh Nagar CM. Pullanda of the knife was prepared and same was sealed with seal of SSD. Seal was given to Ct. Satish after its use. The pullanda was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/B. A rukka Ex. PW3/A was prepared by PW3 and same was handed over to Ct. Kirti Kumar for getting the case registered. After having got the case registered, Ct. Kirti Kumar came back to spot with HC Savinder Singh / second IO who was marked further investigation of case. PW3 handed over the custody of the accused, relevant documents and case property to IInd IO who prepared the site plan at his instance. Supplementary statement of PW3 was recorded and thereafter he was relieved. He identified the case property in the court.
(iv) PW4 HC Kirti Kumar supported the prosecution case and took part in investigation with PW3/ ASI Surender Singh and PW5 / HC Savinder Singh. He deposed on the same lines of PW3. He further C No. 136/06 Unique ID No. 02404R0290542006 Page No. 5 State Vs. Lalit Kumar FIR No.63/06 PS Adarsh Nagar deposed that after having got the case FIR registered, he came back to the spot with HC Savinder Singh /Second IO to whom the custody of accused, relevant documents were handed over by first IO PW3 / ASI Surender. Second IO prepared site plan at the instance of first IO. Supplementary statement of first IO was recorded by second IO. Second IO arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex.PW2/C & PW2/D respectively. IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused vide his confessional statement Ex.PW4/A. Accused was put behind the bars and case property was deposited in Malkhana. He identified the accused and case property in the court.
(v) PW5 HC Savinder Singh is the second IO in the present case who deposed that on 27.01.2006, Ct. Kirti handed over him a rukka and the copy of FIR of the present case for further investigation. Thereafter he along with Ct. Kirti went to the spot i.e. Azadpur Ring Road Bus C No. 136/06 Unique ID No. 02404R0290542006 Page No. 6 State Vs. Lalit Kumar FIR No.63/06 PS Adarsh Nagar Stand, near Railway Bridge. There ASI Surender Singh handed over him the custody of accused Lalit Kumar, sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of SSD and relevant documents. PW5 prepared a site plan Ex.PW5/A at the instance of ASI Surender Singh whose supplementary statement was recorded by PW5 and thereafter ASI Surender Singh / first IO was relieved. The accused was interrogated and thereafter, he was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW2/C & PW3/D respectively. The accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PW4/A. The accused was put behind the bars and the case property was deposited in Malkhana at PS. PW5 recorded the statement of witnesses and filed the notification dated 17.02.79 Ex.PW4/B. The chargesheet was prepared under the supervision of SHO.
Prosecution evidence was closed on 09.06.2011.
Statement of accused and defence C No. 136/06 Unique ID No. 02404R0290542006 Page No. 7 State Vs. Lalit Kumar FIR No.63/06 PS Adarsh Nagar
4. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC was recorded. Accused stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated by planting case property upon him. No evidence in defence was led.
Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions:
5. Having touched upon the statements of PWs, I shall consider the rival contention of parties. Accused has highlighted several infirmities in investigation which are being discussed hereunder alongwith the explanations therefore advanced by Ld. APP for the State.
6. It is firstly highlighted by accused that the IO has not joined any independent public witness despite availability. Admittedly, several public witnesses were present at the time of apprehension of accused and while completing the formalities at the spot but none of the public witnesses was even requested to become witness. This casts doubt about sincere efforts C No. 136/06 Unique ID No. 02404R0290542006 Page No. 8 State Vs. Lalit Kumar FIR No.63/06 PS Adarsh Nagar made by the IO to join independent witnesses. In Roop Chand v/s State of Haryana reported in 1990 (1) CLR 69, it was observed that such explanations that the public persons refused to join the proceedings are unreliable and in Pradeep Narayan V/S State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1995 S.C. 1930 held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation benefit of which has to go to the accused.
7. It is settled proposition of law that Sub Section 4 of Section 100 CrPC is directory provision, however, explanation of non joining of independent witness should be plausible. The explanation put forward by the prosecution for non joining of independent witness appears to be implausible for reason that there was ample time with the IO at least to note down the particulars of the persons who refused to join the investigation. The same creates doubt regarding the fairness of the investigation. C No. 136/06 Unique ID No. 02404R0290542006 Page No. 9
State Vs. Lalit Kumar FIR No.63/06 PS Adarsh Nagar
8. It is also noteworthy that the most crucial part of the investigation has been conducted by the complainant ASI Surender Singh even before registration of FIR. Since, he was present at the spot alongwith other police officials, no explanation has been put forth by the prosecution as to why despite availability, the investigation was not handed over to some other senior officer. In such case, as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Megha Singh V/S State of Haryana reported in 1995 Crl. L. J. 3988 and as held in the case titled as Sunil V/S State reported in 1999 (1) JCC 85 (Delhi) benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused.
9. It is also highlighted by accused that on the recovery Memo, the FIR number finds mention and it has not been explained by the prosecution. Admittedly, these documents were prepared before registration of FIR. When documents are prepared before registration of FIR and it contains the C No. 136/06 Unique ID No. 02404R0290542006 Page No. 10 State Vs. Lalit Kumar FIR No.63/06 PS Adarsh Nagar FIR number, then interference has to be drawn that either FIR was recoded prior in time or the documents were prepared later on and in such cases, benefit of doubt is to be given the the accused.
10. It is next pointed out by accused that the seal was kept by the police officials themselves and was not handed over to any independent person and prosecution has also failed to prove that the case property remained intact and was not tampered with till the time it was produced in the Court which was more important when the seal remained with the police official of the same police station.
11. All the lapses in investigation, discussed herein above creates a doubt on the very recovery of one buttondar knife from the possession of accused. The lapses are material one and cannot be ignored. It is settled proposition of law that if the investigation suffers from taint then the entire prosecution case becomes open to serious doubts and challenges. The C No. 136/06 Unique ID No. 02404R0290542006 Page No. 11 State Vs. Lalit Kumar FIR No.63/06 PS Adarsh Nagar material is insufficient to record a finding of guilt of the accused and the safer course available is to acquit the accused giving him a benefit of doubt.
Conclusion
12. In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I acquit the accused Lalit Kumar for the offence U/S 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
13. The Bail Bond stands cancelled and surety for the accused stands discharged. Any endorsement placed on the documents of the surety may accordingly, be cancelled. The original documents of the surety, if retained on record be returned against acknowledgment. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Neeraj Gaur)
today i.e. 09.08.2011 Metropolitan MagistrateIV
Rohini Courts, Delhi
C No. 136/06
Unique ID No. 02404R0290542006 Page No. 12