Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/77/1990 on 3 January, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJESH MALIK : MM (WEST) 05
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
1.FIR No. :77/90
2.Unique Case ID No. :Not alloted.
3.Title
3(A).Name of complainant :Sh. Manohar Singh S/o Sh. Trilok Singh R/o
IIIB/130A, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi.
3(B).Name of accused :1. Manjeet singh S/o Sh. Tara Singh R/o 3A/69, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi.
2. Jaspal Singh S/o Sh. Singara Singh R/o 283/191, Vishnu Garden, Delhi.
3.Parvinder Singh S/o Rullia Singh R/o IIIA/82, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi.
4.Date of institution of challan :01.09.1990
5.Date of Reserving judgment :03.01.11
6.Date of pronouncement :03.01.11
7.Date of commission of offence :04.02.1990
8.Offence complained of :Under Section 27 Arms Act and 324 IPC
9.Offence charged with :Under Section 27 Arms Act and 324 IPC
10.Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty
11.Final order :Acquitted.
FIR No.77/90 1/7 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE: 1 The case of the prosecution starts with DD entry no.20A dated 04.02.1990 informing therein that one Manohar Singh had been struck with a knife. The investigation was marked to ASI Ram Kumar, who reached to the spot. When he reached there, the injured had already been shifted to DDU Hospital. No eye witness was present on the spot. ASI Ram Kumar went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured.
2. The injured in his first statement stated that he went to his plot no.ZW3A/38 to collect rent. When he was standing outside the house, the accused persons Jaspal Singh, Parvinder Singh told him why had he come there and started abusing him. Then, both the accused persons left the place. After some time, the accused Jaspal, Parvinder and one Dimpa came together. Jaspal caught hold of him and Parminder struck my shoulder with kirpan and Dimpa i.e, Manjit Singh stabbed his thigh with the knife. He shouted for help and people gathered there and saved him. He rushed to the hospital and Kuldeep Singh got him into the three wheeler and admitted him in DDU Hospital.
3. Charge for the offences under Section 27 Arms Act has framed against the accused Parminder and Manjit Singh and charge under section 324/34 IPC has been framed against the accused persons namely Parminder, Manjit and Jaspal Singh to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution has examined four witnesses to prove its case against the accused persons.
The injured has been examined as PW1. He deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 4.35 pm, he went to the place of incident to collect rent and all the three FIR No.77/90 2/7 accused persons were also standing there. The mother of the accused Manjeet Singh was also present. One person Lucky whom he knew came out from the house of Manjeet Singh and talked with him. That infuriated the mother of the accused Manjeet Singh and Jaspal Singh. All the three accused persons then took him to one site and started abusing him. Thereafter, accused Parvinder Singh hit Kirpansword on his back and accused Manjeet Singh hit something with sharp object on his back. Then, all of them fled away from the spot. He himself went to the DDU Hospital with the help of Kuldeep Singh.
PW2 is another eye witness who deposed he was coming from his job and he saw all the accused persons present at the place of incident. Accused Jaspal Singh caught hold of the injured and other two accused persons Parvinder Singh and Manjeet Singh gave blows with churra i.e Kirpan in their hands. He deposed that accused Parvinder Singh and Manjeet Singh inflicted injuries on the leg of the injured. He further deposed that he helped the injured to get into the auto rickshaw. The accused Jaspal was arrested at the instance of the PW2. The other accused persons namely Parvinder Sing and Manjeet Singh were arrested on the next day i.e, 05.02.1990 and weapons of offence i.e. Kirpans were recovered from their possession. The weapons of the offence i.e. Kirpans were seized vide memo Ex.PW2/B and 2/C. In his crossexamination, he deposed that police had already recovered the weapons of offence and then, the same were shown to him. He admitted that except the drawing of sketches of the weapons of offence, he did not witness the recovery of weapons.
5. Now, the stage has been set to discuss the prosecution case to find out whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons. FIR No.77/90 3/7
6. Discussion on charge under section 27/54/59 Arms Act against the accused Parvinder Singh and Manjit Singh.
At the very outset, the framing of charge under S. 27/54/59 Arms Act against the accused Parvinder Singh and Manjit Singh needs to be looked into. It has been alleged against the above accused persons that they both used kirpans during the occurrence.
Now, the important provisions of Arms Act needs to be discussed to find out whether the basic ingredients of section 27 Arms Act have been stood fulfilled by the alleged facts of the present case.
Section 2(c) Arms Act provides the definition of arm. It says "Arm" means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offences, or defence, and includes firearms, sharpedged and other deadly weapons and parts of ,and machinery for manufacturing arms, but does not include articles designed solely for domestic or agriculture uses such as lathi or an ordinary walking stick and weapon incapable of being used otherwise than as toys or of being converted into serviceable weapons.
6.Further, section 4 of Arms Act provides for licence for acquisition and possession of arms of specified description in certain cases. It empowers to central government to regulate the arms other than the firearms.
Section 5 of Arms Act prohibits the possession of any other arms of such class and description as may be prescribed under section 4 of the act.
A joint reading of section 4 and 5 shows that no arm shall fall in the category of section 5, unless it is regulated by the notification of central government by virtue of section 4 of said Act.
FIR No.77/90 4/7
7. Now, reverting back to the facts of the present case, the accused Parvinder Singh and Manjit Singh have been prosecuted and charged to use a "kirpan". As per the notification/regulation dated 17th Feb. 1979 issued by Govt. of NCT, a kirpan has not been covered in the notification and accordingly, no licence is required to keep the Kirpan. In other words, section 4 of Arms Act does not cover "Kirpan" as an arm regulated by the notification of the government. It necessarily means that when an arm has not been regulated by notification, using the same does not attract provision of section 27 of Arms Act. Thus, the accused persons, namely, Parvinder Singh and Manjit Singh are hereby acquitted under section 27 of Arms Act.
8. Discussion on Charge Under section 324/34 against all the three accused persons.
PW2 deposed that on seeing him, the accused persons fled away from the spot. He had also helped the injured to take three wheeler to reach the hospital. He even deposed about the role played by the accused persons during the occurrence. Interestingly, the help rendered by PW2 goes unnoticed and unrecognized as injured did not mention the single word about the presence of the PW2 on the spot either in FIR or in his deposition before the court. It is highly improbable that the injured would name a tenant namely Kuldeep Singh as a person who helped him rather than his real uncle who was allegedly present on the spot in his first statement recorded by police. The testimony of PW2 stands alone and devoid of any creditability regarding his presence on the spot. The analysis of the testimony of PW2 casts doubts about his presence on the spot as it appears that PW2 joined himself in the investigation later on to strengthen the case of the prosecution. It is the general tendency FIR No.77/90 5/7 amongst the relatives of the injured to cite themselves as the witness to corroborate the testimony of the injured. The testimony of PW2 introduces falsity in the case of the prosecution. This makes the court to be on guard while evaluating the testimony of the injured.
9. Another incriminating evidence against the accused persons are the recovery of Kirpans from them. Again, PW2 has been shown as the witness of the recovery of Kirpans. However, in his cross examination, he deposed that except the drawing of sketches of recovered weapons, he did not witness the recovery. Here again, the prosecution has introduced falsity in its story. Hence, the recovery of weapons has not been proved against the accused persons.
10. Now, we has come to a point where only the statement of injured inculpating the accused persons is left for the prosecution.
11. Apparently, PW1 has contradicted himself with his first statement Ex. PW1/A. In his deposition before the court he deposed that he met with one lucky. His meeting with Lucky was objected by the mother of Manjeet Singh. Then all the three accused persons took him to the one side and attacked him with the Kirpans. The person namely lucky and the mother of the accused Manjeet were introduced at the first time in his deposition before the court. The meeting with the boy which led to the dispute was not disclosed by the injured in his first statement Ex. PW1/A. The genesis of the dispute was disclosed at the first time before the court. The only uncorroborated testimony of PW1 coupled with the fact that falsity has been involved in the case of the prosecution, the suggestion of the defence that other persons struck the accused seems probable and it is not safe to convict the accused FIR No.77/90 6/7 persons under section 324/34 I.P.C. Hence, all the accused persons are acquitted for the charge under section 324/34 I.P.C.
Hence, All the accused persons stands acquitted of the all the charges in the present case.
Announced in the open (RAJESH MALIK)
Court on 03.01.11 MM ( West)05/NEW DELHI
FIR No.77/90 7/7