Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Singh on 28 March, 2011
FIR No. 234/02
PS: Adarsh Nagar
S/v Ram Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ GAUR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-IV ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Brief reasons for the judgment in the case with following
particulars
FIR NO. 234/02
PS Adarsh Nagar
U/S 25/54/59 of Arms Act
CC No. 217/02
Unique ID No. 02401R0314042002
State V/S Ram Singh
Date of Institution: 08.08.2002
Date of commission of offence 17.06.2002
Name of the Complainant HC Anil Kumar
Name and address of accused Ram Singh S/o Hilley R/o
VPO Kharot PS Khoji District
Mathura, (UP).
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 28.03.2011.
Date for announcing the orders 28.03.2011.
CC No. 217/02
Unique ID No. 02401R0314042002 Page No. 1
FIR No. 234/02
PS: Adarsh Nagar
S/v Ram Singh
Brief facts and pre trial procedure
1.The case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2002 at village Bharola near bus stand Delhi, when PW-2 HC Anil was on patrolling duty along with PW-3 Ct. K. Raj Shekhar, they saw the accused who on seeing them started running towards JJ cluster, Sarai Pipal Thala. On suspicion, they chased the accused and apprehended him. On casual search, accused was found in possession of a buttondar knife having total length of 22.5 Cms. The blade was measured and seized. PW-2 prepared the tehrir and on the basis of tehrir, the present FIR was got registered. Accused was arrested and sent up for trial.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Charge U/S 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused on 24.07.2004 to which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Trial
3. Prosecution examined four witnesses whose testimonies are touched upon in brief as under :-
CC No. 217/02 Unique ID No. 02401R0314042002 Page No. 2 FIR No. 234/02
PS: Adarsh Nagar S/v Ram Singh 3.1 PW-1 ASI Bhagwani Devi was the DO at the relevant time who proved the FIR as Ex. PW 1/A. 3.2 PW-2 HC Anil Kumar deposed that on17.06.2002 he was on patrolling duty with PW-3. They saw the accused coming who turned after seeing them and on suspicion, they chased him and apprehended him. On his casual search, one buttondar knife was recovered. Sketch of the knife was prepared as Ex. PW 2/A. He deposed that the pullanda of the knife was prepared and same was sealed with the seal of AK. The pullanda was seized vide memo Ex.PW 2/B. PW-2 prepared the rukka Ex. PW 2/C. After registration of ASI Om Prakash came to the spot and he handed over the custody of the accused, relevant documents and case property to second IO ASI Om Prakash who prepared the site plan at his instance. His supplementary statement was recorded by the second IO and thereafter he was discharged.
3.3 PW-4 SI Om Prakash deposed that on 17.06.2002 he was posted at PS Adarsh Nagar as ASI. On that day, Ct. Raj Shekhar CC No. 217/02 Unique ID No. 02401R0314042002 Page No. 3 FIR No. 234/02 PS: Adarsh Nagar S/v Ram Singh handed over him a rukka and copy of FIR of the present case and thereafter, he along with PW-3 went to the spot where PW-2 handed over him the custody of accused, sealed case property and relevant documents. He prepared a site plan Ex. PW 4/A at the instance of PW-2 whose supplementary statement was recorded by him and thereafter first IO was relieved. The accused was interrogated. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW 3/A & PW 3/B respectively. The case property was deposited in Malkhana and the accused was put behind the bar. The chargesheet was prepared under the supervision of SHO.
3.4 PW-3 Ct. K. Raj Shekhar deposed on the same lines of the IOs i.e. PW-2 and PW-4 as he was present during investigation with them.
Statement of accused and defence
4. In his statement recorded U/S 313 CrPC, accused Suresh claimed his innocence. He took the defence of false implication by CC No. 217/02 Unique ID No. 02401R0314042002 Page No. 4 FIR No. 234/02 PS: Adarsh Nagar S/v Ram Singh planting case property. He did not prefer to examine any witness in defence.
Appreciation of evidence in light of arguments advanced by the parties
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.
5.1 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 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 CC No. 217/02 Unique ID No. 02401R0314042002 Page No. 5 FIR No. 234/02 PS: Adarsh Nagar S/v Ram Singh 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.
5.2 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.
5.3 It is also noteworthy that the most crucial part of the investigation has been conducted by the complainant HC Anil Kumar even before registration of FIR. Since, he was present at the spot alongwith other police officials, no explanation has been put CC No. 217/02 Unique ID No. 02401R0314042002 Page No. 6 FIR No. 234/02 PS: Adarsh Nagar S/v Ram Singh 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.
5.4 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 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.
5.5 It is next pointed out by accused that the seal was kept by the police officials themselves and was not handed over to any CC No. 217/02 Unique ID No. 02401R0314042002 Page No. 7 FIR No. 234/02 PS: Adarsh Nagar S/v Ram Singh 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.
5.6 It is noteworthy that no effort at all was made by the police to ascertain the source from where the alleged weapon was acquired by the accused. No explanation is coming forthwith on such effort so not made. This lapse in investigation certainly accrues a benefit in favour of accused.
6. 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 material is insufficient to record a finding of guilt of the accused and the safer course available is to CC No. 217/02 Unique ID No. 02401R0314042002 Page No. 8 FIR No. 234/02 PS: Adarsh Nagar S/v Ram Singh acquit the accused giving him a benefit of doubt. 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 Ram Singh for the offence U/S 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
7. 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)
Dated 28.03.2011 Metropolitan Magistrate-IV
Rohini Courts, Delhi
CC No. 217/02
Unique ID No. 02401R0314042002 Page No. 9