Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil Kumar @ Madari on 30 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. HIMANSHU TANWAR: MM-10: SOUTH-EAST
DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 122/2022
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Pul Prahlad Pur
State vs. Anil Kumar @ Madari
Date of Institution of case : 22.03.2022
Judgment Reserved on : 20.09.2022
Date of Judgment : 30.09.2022
JUDGMENT:
(a) The Institution Serial No. of the Case : 2701/2022
(b) The date of commission of offence : 17.02.2022
(c) Details of complainant : Ct. Mohan, No.2931/SE PIS No.29100855, Police Station Pul Prahlad Pur, New Delhi.
(d) Details of accused persons : Anil Kumar @ Madari, s/o Sh. Mohan Singh, r/o K-219, Nardan Basti, Lal Kuan, MB Road, Pul Prahlad Pur, New Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of : 25/54/59 Arms Act (f) The plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty (g) The final order : Acquitted (h) The date of such order : 30.09.2022.
By this judgment the court shall dispose of the case u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act. Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1) The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 17.02.2022 at about 10:30 pm, at Prem Nagar, Lal Kuan Road from Okhla T-point to Badarpur, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Pul Prahlad Pur, accused was found in State vs. Anil Kumar @ Madari FIR No.122/2022 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.1 of 7 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date:
2022.10.01 15:55:21 +0530 possession of a buttondar knife (total length 20 cm, length of blade 10 cm, width of blade 2.5 cm) without any permit or license in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
2) After the accused was produced in the Court from judicial custody, copy of chargesheet and other documents were supplied to him. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused person u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act, to which accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
3) In the prosecution evidence, PW-1 Ct. Mohan Rawal, No.2931/SE, in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 17.02.2022 he was present at Prem Nagar Entry Gate, MB Road. At about 10:30 PM, he saw that accused was coming from Okhla Mor and going towards Badapur Road and after seeing him, accused started running. On suspicion, he chased him and apprehended and asked about the reason of running but the accused could not give any satisfactory answer.
Thereafter, he took personal search of the accused and found one buttondar knife from the right-side pocket of his pant. The name of the accused was revealed as Anil Kumar @ Madari. Thereafter, he gave information to the Police Station. HC Parveen came at the spot. PW1 handed over the possession of the accused and recovered knife to HC Parveen. IO recorded his statement, PW1/A. HC Parveen asked some public persons to join the investigation but none agreed to same. He measured the buttondar knife and prepared the sketch memo, Ex.PW1/B and found the total length of knife as 20 cm, length of blade 10 cm and width of the blade 2.5 cm, length of handle 10 cm and handle was of wood and was having a button and by pressing the button, the blade of said knife came out. Thereafter, IO closed the blade of said knife and kept the same in a plastic container and State vs. Anil Kumar @ Madari FIR No.122/2022 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.2 of 7 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date:
2022.10.01 15:55:30 +0530 wrapped the same with doctor tape and sealed with seal of PK. Thereafter, IO took the knife into police possession vide seizure memo, Ex.PW1/C. IO endorsed the statement/tehrir and prepared the rukka and handed over the same to PW1 for registration of FIR. PW1 went to the PS and got the present case registered. After registration of FIR, PW1 came back to the spot. IO prepared site plan at the instance of PW1, Ex.PW1/D. IO HC Parveen Kumar interrogated the accused and recorded the disclosure statement, Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, IO arrested and conducted personal search of the accused vide memos, Ex.PW1/F and PW1/G, respectively. Thereafter, they went to the police station and deposited the case property in the Malkhanna. IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Accused was correctly identified by the witness when he was present in the Court during the course of recording of evidence. PW1 correctly identified the knife after seeing the same.
PW-1, in his cross-examination by Sh. Deepak Kumar, Ld. LAC for accused, deposed that the place of incident was a public place. Public persons were also present at the spot. PW-1 admitted that IO has not served notice to public persons to join the investigation. PW-1 admitted that on the day of recording of evidence, he had not brought any DD entry regarding his departure.
PW-1 further deposed that the DD entry may be present at the PS. PW-1 admitted that he had not made any entry. PW-1 voluntarily deposed that Duty officer has made the entry. PW-1 admitted that IO has not given him seal after use and that was deposing falsely. PW-1 also denied that nothing was recovered from the accused that is why no public persons joined the investigation.
4) PW-2, HC Parveen, PIS No.1762/SE, in this examination-in-chief deposed that on 17.02.2022, he received DD No.82A regarding apprehension of one State vs. Anil Kumar @ Madari FIR No.122/2022 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.3 of 7 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2022.10.01 15:55:38 +0530 person along with knife. Thereafter, he went to the spot. Ct. Mohan handed over the possession of the accused and recovered knife to him. He recorded his statement, Ex.PW1/A. He prepared the rukka on the basis of the statement of Ct.
Mohan, Ex.Ex.PW2/A. He asked some public persons to join the investigation but none agreed to same. He measured the buttondar knife and prepared the sketch memo, Ex.PW1/B and found the total length of knife as 20 cm, length of blade 10 cm and width of the blade 2.5 cm, length of handle 10 cm and handle was of wood and handle was having a button and by pressing the button, the blade of said knife came out. Thereafter, he closed the blade of said knife and kept the same in a plastic container and wrapped the same with doctor tape and sealed with seal of PK. Thereafter, he took the knife into police possession vide seizure memo, Ex.PW1/C. He endorsed the statement/tehrir and prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Mohan for registration of FIR. Ct. Mohan went to the PS and got the present case registered. After registration of FIR, Ct. Mohan came back to the spot. PW2 prepared site plan at the instance of Ct. Mohan, Ex.PW1/D. PW2 further deposed that he interrogated the accused and recorded the disclosure statement, Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, he arrested and conducted personal search of the accused vide memos, Ex.PW1/F and PW1/G. Thereafter, they went to the police station and depoisited the case property in the Malkhanna. He recorded statement of Ct. Mohan u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On the next day, he produced the accused Anil Kumar before the concerned Court and accused was sent to JC. Accused was present in the Court on the day of recordig of evidence and was correctly identified by the witness. PW-2 correctly identified the knife after seeing the same.
PW2, in his cross-examination by Deepak Kumar, Ld. LAC for accused, deposed that the place of incident was a public place. Public persons were also present at the spot. PW-2 admitted that he have not served notice to public State vs. Anil Kumar @ Madari FIR No.122/2022 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.4 of 7 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU TANWAR HIMANSHU Date: TANWAR 2022.10.01 15:55:47 +0530 persons to join the investigation. PW-2 admitted that he was not present at the spot and I had been called by DO. PW-2 also admitted that the knife was not recovered from the accused in his presence. he prepared all the aforesaid documents at the spot. PW-2 denied that he had not prepared the aforesaid documents or that he had prepared the aforesaid documents while sitting at PS. PW-2 deposed that he had prepared the documents first, and handed over the tehrir to Ct. Mohan. Thereafter, he had prepared all the aforesaid documents including all contents before arrival of Ct. Mohan from the PS along with rukka/tehrir. PW-2 denied that the case property is a planted one.
PW-2 further deposed that the bus stop is located on the west of the place of incident and the Lohar Basti is located on the north of the place of incident. PW-2 also deposed that the knife was made of steel like metal along with wooden butt. PW-2 denied that he was deposing falsely and that nothing was recovered from the accused that is why no public persons joined the investigation.
5) Accused in his statement u/s 294 CrPC, admitted the genuineness of following documents:-
A. Copy of FIR, Ex.A1
B. DD No.86A dated 17.02.2022, Ex.A2
C. Certificate u/S 65-B, Ex.A3
D. DD No.82A dated 17.02.2022, Ex.A4
However, he denied the incriminatory facts appearing against him in the above mentioned documents.
6) Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was listed for recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P. C. In his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused stated "I have been falsely implicated". He further stated that State vs. Anil Kumar @ Madari FIR No.122/2022 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.5 of 7 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2022.10.01 15:55:58 +0530 he does not want to lead evidence in his defence. DE was therefore closed.
7) I have heard the submissions addressed by the Dr. Prayag Dutt Pandey, Ld. APP for State and the Ld. Counsel for accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
8) Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. On the other hand, Dr. Prayag Dutt Pandey, Ld. APP has submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to convicted.
Appreciation of evidence
9) Be that as may, it is well settled that the burden of proof to prove all the ingredients of the alleged offence lies on the prosecution and the prosecution has to discharge the said burden beyond reasonable doubt, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. However, in the present matter, the case of the prosecution is marred with several serious lapses. It is a matter of record that only police witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in the present matter. No public witness has been examined by the prosecution in the present matter, even though the place of occurrence was a public place where many public persons would have been easily available and the fact that there were public persons at around the spot is even admitted by the prosecution's witnesses. Even otherwise, the aforesaid police officials have not proved their presence at the spot, as no departure or arrival entries have been placed on record in the present matter. Moreover, it is the case of the prosecution that the above said seized case property was sealed by PW-2 HC Parveen with the seal of PK. However, no handing over memo of the seal has been placed on record. Further it had been State vs. Anil Kumar @ Madari FIR No.122/2022 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.6 of 7 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date:
2022.10.01 15:56:08 +0530 stated by both the PWs that the case property, i.e., the buttondar knife, was kept in a plastic container and was sealed with the seal of PK, but the case property was produced before the court during the evidence in a brown colour paper box wrapped in a white cloth.
10) Abovementioned observation assumes significance on account of another grave contradiction which is to be seen in the testimonies of PW1 & PW2, wherein they had deposed that seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and Sketch Memo Ex.
PW1/C were prepared prior to registration of FIR, but both the documents bear the FIR number at the top, which does cast an apprehension that these documents, if not all, were prepared at PS itself and not at spot.
11) In view of the aforesaid facts and observations, the alleged recovery and the presence of the police officials at the spot itself becomes doubtful and it casts a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution. Thus, the possibility of the case property being planted on the accused cannot be ruled out. Consequently, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused.
12) The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused Anil Kumar is hereby acquitted.
Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT 2022.10.01
15:56:18 +0530
On 30.09.2022
(HIMANSHU TANWAR)
MM-10, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET: NEW DELHI
State vs. Anil Kumar @ Madari FIR No.122/2022 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.7 of 7