Delhi District Court
In Re: State vs Rehan on 20 November, 2012
IN THE COURT GAURAV RAO: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: SOUTH
DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
In Re: STATE VERSUS REHAN
F.I.R. No: 283/00
U/s 25 Arms Act
P.S. Defence Colony
Date of Institution of Case : 14.07.2000
Date of Judgment Reserved for : 20.11.2012
Date of Judgment : 20.11.2012
JUDGMENT:
(a) The serial no. of the case : 22/3/2000
(b) The date of commission of offence : 18.04.2000
(c) The name of complainant : SI Ram Sahai Meena
(d) The name, parentage of accused : Rehan s/o Chabbar, R/o A35,
Taimur Nagar, New Friends
Colony, 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 : 20.11.2012
FIR No.283/00 State Vs. Rehan 1/9
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 18.04.2000 at about 08.00 pm at bus stand near Indian School, J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Defence Colony, accused was found in possession of one buttondar 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 30.06.2000 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 five 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 Const. Arjun Lal deposed that on 18.04.2000 at about 08.00 p.m. he along with SI Ram Sahai Meena and Const. Mohd. Salim were on patrolling duty and when they reached near Sadiq Nagar chowk they received FIR No.283/00 State Vs. Rehan 2/9 secret information that one person is standing at Joseph Broz tito Marg and he is having knife in his possession and the same could be recovered if checked. He deposed that they all went there and on the signal of secret informer they apprehended the accused and on search of accused they found one buttondar knife in the right pant pocket of accused. It was junked and buttondar and it was having nine circles of red and green colour. He deposed that IO measured the knife and total length of same was 23.5 cm, handle was of 12.5 cm and length of blade was 11 cm. It was sealed and pullanda was prepared and seal after use was handed over to Const. Mohd. Salim and he deposited the same in malkhana afterwards. He deposed that sketch of the knife is Ex. PW1/A, knife was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/B. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/C. This witness correctly identified the case property as Ex. P1.
5. PW2 ASI Champa Lal deposed that on 18.04.2000 he was posted as DO at PS Defence Colony and on that day at about 09.15 pm on receipt of rukka through Ct. Arjun Dass sent by ASI Ram Sahai he recorded the case FIR i.e. Ex. PW2/A.
6. PW3 Const. Mohd Salim deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW1 Const. Arjun Lal. PW3 (in fact PW4) SI Ram Sahai also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW1 and PW3.
FIR No.283/00 State Vs. Rehan 3/9
7. PW4 SI P.K. Jha deposed that on 18.04.2000 he was posted at PS Defence Colony and on that day investigation of the present case was handed over to him by the Duty Officer and he went to the spot i.e. Indian School, J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi where SI Ram Sahai Meena met him and handed over to him the accused along with case property. He deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW4/A at the instance of IO SI Ram Sahai Meena. He deposed that accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW4/B and Ex. PW1/C. He deposed that he obtained the copy of notification Mark X. Thereafter he recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of formal investigation challan was presented before court through SHO concerned.
8. During his cross examination 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 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 FIR No.283/00 State Vs. Rehan 4/9 falsely.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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. PW4/A, the spot/place of arrest/recovery shown at a bus stop in front of Indian School at JB Tito Marg, New Delhi. 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.283/00 State Vs. Rehan 5/9
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 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:
FIR No.283/00 State Vs. Rehan 6/9 ''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. 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:
FIR No.283/00 State Vs. Rehan 7/9 "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 ( 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) 452 and Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa (2005) 9 SCC 773. (3) material prosecution documents i.e. sketch of the knife i.e. Ex. PW1/A, seizure memo Ex. PW1/B etc. do not bear the FIR number and the column is blank. This cast serious doubts upon the prosecution story regarding the recovery of knife from the accused. Similarly, there is overwriting/cutting on Ex. PW4/B i.e. the arrest memo and time of arrest seems to have been altered which further casts doubt on the prosecution claim.
19. All these contradiction casts serious doubts on the prosecution story.
FIR No.283/00 State Vs. Rehan 8/9
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 20.11.2012 MM (South)/Delhi. FIR No.283/00 State Vs. Rehan 9/9 F.I.R. No:283/00 U/s 25 Arms Act P.S. Defence Colony 20.11.2012 Pr: Ld. APP for state.
Accused is present on bail along with his counsel Sh. Pradeep Kumar.
Witnesses SI P.K. Jha is present and he has been examined, cross examined and discharged as PW 4.
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. Pradeep Kumar 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
20.11.2012
FIR No.283/00 State Vs. Rehan 10/9