Delhi District Court
State vs Huri Lal on 20 March, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDER JIT SINGH,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
DELHI.
FIR No.7/04
P.S. Darya Ganj
U/S 25 Arms Act
State Vs.Huri Lal
JUDGMENT :
(a) The Sl. No. of the case : 518/2/04
(b) The date of commission : 05.01.2004
(c) The name of complainant : HC Hari Singh
(d) The name of accused : Huri Lal
S/o Late Sh. Janaki Prashad
R/o village Sanjay Nagar
P.O Shayamat Ganj
District Barrailly (UP)
(e) The offence complained of : u/s 25 Arms Act.
(f) The plea of accused : Not guilty.
(g) The final order : Acquitted.
(h) The date of such order : 30.03.2011
(i) The date of institution
of the case : 31.01.2004
(j) Date of hearing final arguments
and adjournment for orders : 29.03.2001
State Vs. Huri Lal FIR no. 7/04 1 of 5
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1 Accused has been forwarded to face trial by the police on the
allegations that on 05.01.2004 at about 10:30 PM HC Hari Singh reached near DMA Hall, he noticed a person who turned around and walk briskly on spotting police party which raised suspicion in the mind of Ct. Hari Singh and the said person was apprehended. His casual search was conducted and in that casual search, from the right pocket of his trousers one buttondar knife was recovered. On measuring, the total length of the said knife was revealed to be 23.5 cm having a blade of length 10.5 cm and butt was 13 cm long. The width of blade was 2.5 cm. The butt was made of aluminum and having embodied some flower painting and some steel which knife was opened and closed. After recovery of the said knife the Ct. had asked 5/6 passer by to join investigation but they left showing their inability to join. After that, sketch of knife was prepared and the same was seized in pulinda of clothes which was sealed with the stamp of HS and the stamp was handed over to Ct. Naresh Chand vide separate memo. After that Ct. Naresh Chand was sent with Tehrir for registration of the FIR and the present FIR was recorded. After that accused was apprehended. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
2 After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. After the securing the presence of accused and supplying the copies of State Vs. Huri Lal FIR no. 7/04 2 of 5 charge sheet and annexing document, charge u/s 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thus, prosecution led evidence. 3 Prosecution has examined 4 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. Ct. Naresh Chand was examined as PW1 whose examined could not be concluded for the want of case property and was not later examined. He had reiterated the allegations made by the police. ASI Krishan Pal was examined as PW2 and he had proved the carbon copy of the FIR as Ex. PW2/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW2/B. He was not cross examined despite opportunity. HC Lekh Raj was examined as PW3. In his examination in chief he had stated that he inspected the site at the instance of HC Hari Singh and prepared the site plan which is Ex. PW2/A. He arrested the accused and conducted the personal search. He was duly cross examined wherein he stated that he reached on the spot at about 12:05 AM and remained on the spot for 10/15 minutes. Later he states that they started for P.S at about 5/7 minutes to 1.00 AM. He also stated that he recorded the statements on the spot and public witnesses refused to join. HC Hari Singh was examined as PW4 and he has deposed on the lines of version of prosecution in his examination in chief. He was duly cross examined wherein he stated that he has not made DD entry in the police station regarding departure or arrival. He also stated that he served notice on the public persons who refused to join the State Vs. Huri Lal FIR no. 7/04 3 of 5 proceedings but later on again said that they did not serve any notice. He also stated that he left the spot in the last and it may be after 12:00 AM.
4 After conclusion of PE statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C has been recorded wherein accused submitted that he is innocent and was not present at the spot on the relevant time.
5 I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and carefully perused the record. In the present case, the testimony of PW2 is formal in nature. PW3 has stated that he remained on spot for about 10/15 minutes but later he stated that he started around 1:00 PM he also stated that he recorded the statement, prepared the site plan, arrested the accused prepared the memo and the personal search memo on the spot only. All these facts together puts his testimonies within the purview of doubt and all the proceedings would have taken more than 10/15 minutes and even if, it is accepted that he was able to complete the proceedings in 10/15 minutes, then he should have started by 12.15/12.20 AM. Similarly the testimonies of PW4 lands itself within the purview of doubt from his statement on the fact about the joining the public witnesses and serving notice to them as he is giving two answers to the same questions. All these anomalies in the testimonies of the witness coupled with the fact that no public witness has been joined makes the case of the prosecution more doubtful. Further the police party has not offered their search prior to State Vs. Huri Lal FIR no. 7/04 4 of 5 conducting the search of accused which further raises suspicion on their testimonies. In view of the above said discussion prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore he is acquitted u/s 25 Arms Act.
Pronounced in the open Court (Chander Jit Singh) On 30.03.2011. MM08,Central District Delhi.
State Vs. Huri Lal FIR no. 7/04 5 of 5