Delhi District Court
State vs . Sarfaraz Ahmad on 28 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. HIMANSHU TANWAR: MM10: SOUTHEAST
DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No.19/2020
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Pul Prahlad Pur
State vs. Sarfaraz Ahmad
Date of Institution of case : 19.02.2021
Judgment Reserved on : 24.11.2022
Date of Judgment : 28.11.2022
JUDGMENT:
(a) The Institution Serial No. of the Case : 1424/2021
(b) The date of commission of offence : 14.01.2020
(c) Details of complainant : Ct. Sita Ram, No.1300/SE, PIS No.28100082, Police Station Pul Prahlad Pur, New Delhi.
(d) Details of accused persons : Sarfaraz Ahmad, s/o Sh. Amir Ahamad, r/o H. No.194, Gali No.18, BlockK, 1st Sangam Vihar, 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 : 28.11.2022
By this judgment the court shall dispose of the case u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
State vs. Sarfaraz Ahmad FIR No.19/2020 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.1 of 9 Digitally signed HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2022.11.25 14:45:34 +0530 Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1) The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 14.01.2020 at about 08:15 PM at Chungi No.2, Lal Kuan, Forest behind Valmiki Temple, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Pul Prahlad Pur, accused was found in possession of a buttondar knife (total length 24.5 cms, length of handle 13.5 cms, length of blade 11 cms, width of blade 3 cms) 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, PW1, Ct. Sita Ram, No.1300/SE, PS PPP, in his examinationinchief deposed that on 14.01.2020, he was posted as Ct. PS PPP. On that day, he was on patrolling duty in his beat area at beat No.9. At about 08:15 PM, when they reached chungi No.2 behind Valmiki Mandir, they saw that accused after seeing him turned back and tried to run away in the jungle.
On suspicion, he chased him and apprehended him at 2530 steps and upon his search, one buttondar knife was recovered from the right side pocket of the wearing pant of the accused. The name of the accused was revealed as Sarfaraz. He gave information to the PS. IO HC Harkesh came at the spot from the PS and he handed over the custody of the accused and recovered knife to him. Thereafter, he recorded his statement, Ex.PW1/A. IO prepared the sketch State vs. Sarfaraz Ahmad FIR No.19/2020 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.2 of 9 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2022.11.25 14:45:40 +0530 memo of the knife, Ex.PW1/B and prepared the tehrir and handed over the same to him.
Thereafter, he went to the Police Station and got the present case registered. After registration of the FIR, he returned to the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and rukka to the IO. IO prepared site plan at his instance, Ex.PW1/C. IO seized the recovered knife vide memo, Ex.PW1/D. IO arrested the accused and conducted his personal search, vide memos, Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F. IO recorded his statement. Thereafter, they went to the PS. Case property was deposited in the malkhana. Accused was kept in the lockup after his medical examination. Witness correctly identified the accused and the case property during the course of giving statement.
PW1 in his crossexamination by Sh. Uday Raj, Ld. Counsel for accused, deposed on 14.01.2020, he was on duty from 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM. He was on patrolling duty from 06:00 PM onwards. He has made dd entries at the time of departure at 06:00 PM in PS. He was alone in patrolling duty. He was doing patrolling on a government vehicle. PW1 admitted that whenever a govt. vehicles moves out of the PS, it is mandatory to make entry of the same. PW1 was not remembering the DD entry number of the departure of vehicle from the PS. PW1 did not tell the IO about the dd entry made by him in his statement u/s 161 CrPC. PW1 voluntarily deposed that duty officer records the dd entry regarding the departure from the PS. PW1 further deposed that when he saw the accused, he was moving on his motorcycle. PW1 saw the accused when he was standing behind the Valmiki mandir. PW1 denied that there was a police gypsy standing near Valmiki mandir.
State vs. Sarfaraz Ahmad FIR No.19/2020 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.3 of 9 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2022.11.25 14:45:48 +0530 Accused was at a distance of 1015 steps from him, when he saw him. Accused had seen him, when he was moving on motorcycle. PW1 parked his motorcycle within 20 seconds when he saw the accused. The accused started moving fast but not running.
PW1 also denied that there was a police gypsy parked near Valmiki mandir and the accused was under the influence of alcohal and he was urinating in front of police gypsy. PW denied that the accused was apprehended as police personnel present there got annoyed by the accused as he was urinating in front of police gypsy. PW1 searched the accused at the same spot, where the accused was apprehended. It was dark at the spot but accused was visible as there was a light nearby. PW1 make a call to the PS from where he apprehended the accused. He apprehended the accused at about 08:15 PM. IO came at the spot after about 10 minutes. When IO reached at the spot, he was present where he had apprehended the accused. When IO came at the spot, they brought the accused about 1015 steps towards lightpole.
PW1 admitted that no lightpole is shown in the site plan. They stayed at the spot for 1015 minutes after the IO reached at the spot. PW1 denied that the public persons were present at that time and that the said road is a busy road and many public persons passed through the same. No persons passed through the road when they were conducting investigation. Only he went to PS for registration of the FIR. They left the spot at about 0909:15 PM finally. IO came at the spot alone. All the proceedings of recovery were made at the spot.
PW1 subsequently also denied that public persons were present at the spot State vs. Sarfaraz Ahmad FIR No.19/2020 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.4 of 9 Digitally signed HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2022.11.25 14:45:54 +0530 but tehy deliberately not joined the public persons as no proceedings were going on at the alleged spot. IO deposited the knife in the malkhanna at around 09:15 PM in the PS. PW1 denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and all the proceedings were done while sitting at the PS and the accused is falsely implicated in the present case and recovered knife has been falsely planted upon the accused.
4) PW2, HC Harkesh, No.710/SE, PS Jamia Nagar, in this examinationin chief deposed that on 14.01.2020, he was posted as HC at PS PPP. On that day, DO gave information to him about the recovery of buttondar knife vide DD entry No.60B, Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, he went to the spot from the PS and Ct. Sita Ram handed over the custody of the accused and recovered knife to him. Thereafter, he recorded statement of Ct. Sita Ram, Ex.PW1/A. He prepared the sketch memo of the knife, Ex.PW1/B and prepared the tehrir, Ex.PW2/B and handed over the same to Ct. Sita Ram for registration of the FIR.
Thereafter, Ct. Sita Ram went to the Ps and got the present case registered. After registration of the FIR, Ct. Sita Ram returned to the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and rukka to him. PW2 prepared site plan, Ex.PW1/C. He seized the recovered knife vide memo, Ex.PW1/D. He arrested the accused and conducted his personal search, vide memos, Ex.PW1/e and Ex.PW1/F. He recorded statement of Ct. Sita Ram. Thereafter, they went to the PS. Case property was deposited in the malkhana. Accused was kept in the lockup after his medical examination. Witness correctly identified the accused and the case property during the course of giving statement.
State vs. Sarfaraz Ahmad FIR No.19/2020 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.5 of 9 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2022.11.25 14:45:59 +0530 PW2 in his crossexamination by Sh. Uday Raj, Ld. Counsel for accused, depoosed that he was in PS when information was received. He reached the spot within five ten minutes after receiving the DD entry. He was on his private vehicle. He proceeded to spot from PS alone. The accused and Ct. Sita Ram met him behind Valmiki Mandir in the jungle. There was visibility where the accused and Ct Sita Ram were standing. The proceedings were done at five steps away from the spot where the accused was caught. PW2 admitted that there was dark at about 08:30 PM. PW2 denied that there was no light at the spot. All the proceeding were conducted while standing at the spot by placing the documents on bike. PW2 admitted that many people pass through the said road. He stayed at the spot for about 3040 minutes. No person passed through the said road when they were conducting the investigation/proceedings. All the documents prepared at the spot are in his handwriting.
PW2 also denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and all the proceedings were done while sitting at the PS and the accused is falsely implicated in the present case and recovered knife has been falsely planted upon the accused. PW2 deposited the knife in Malkhanna at about 11:00 PM. He did not produce the knife before the Ld. MM when the accused was produced in the Court. PW2 could not tell the DD number of depositing the case property in Malkhana. PW2 denied that accused under the influence was urinating in front of police gypsy due to which police personnel became annoyed with the accused and arrested him by falsely implicating him in the present case.
5) Accused in his statement u/s 294 CrPC, admitted the genuineness of following documents: State vs. Sarfaraz Ahmad FIR No.19/2020 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.6 of 9 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2022.11.25 14:46:11 +0530
1. Copy of FIR (without contents) registered in the present case Ex. A1.
2. DAD Notificiation dated 29.10.1980, Ex. A2.
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 r/w 281 Cr.P.C., accused stated that he is totally innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that 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 State vs. Sarfaraz Ahmad FIR No.19/2020 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.7 of 9 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2022.11.25 14:46:21 +0530 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 i.e. behind Valmiki Mandir and further that even though many persons pass through the said road as admitted by the IO, it is hard to believe that no such person through the said road when the police was conducting investigation for close to 30 to 40 minutes. 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/IO HC Harkesh with the seal of HK. However, no handing over memo of the seal has been placed on record. Further it had been stated by the PW1 that he was patrolling on a government vehicle but neither the dd entry of departure of vehicle from the PS nor any dd entry regarding the same has been placed on the judicial file.
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 sketch Memo Ex.PW1/B was prepared prior to registration of FIR, but the said document bears the FIR number at the top, which does cast an apprehension that this document, if not all, was prepared at Police Station itself and not at spot. Further, PW1 has deposed that the seized knife was deposited by the IO at around 09:15 PM in the malkhanna but on the contrary IO have submitted that the said knife was deposited in the malkhanna at about 11:00 PM. This contradiction assumes furthermore significance after the perusal of the arrest memo, which reveals that accused was arrested on 14.01.2020 at 11:40 PM at Chungi No.2, behind Valmiki Mandir, Lal Kuan.
State vs. Sarfaraz Ahmad FIR No.19/2020 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.8 of 9 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2022.11.25 14:46:28 +0530
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 Sarfaraz Ahmad is hereby acquitted in the present case. Digitally signed HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU TANWAR ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TANWAR Date: 2022.11.25 14:46:34 +0530 On 28.11.2022 (HIMANSHU TANWAR) MM10, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT SAKET: NEW DELHI State vs. Sarfaraz Ahmad FIR No.19/2020 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.9 of 9