Delhi District Court
State vs Pradeep on 20 February, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA, M.M., KKD
COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 553/06
U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS: Bhajan Pura, Delhi
State Vs Pradeep
JUDGMENT
a. Sl. No. of the case : 372/06
b. Date of commission of offence : 26.11.06
c. Name of the complainant : Ct. Pramod Kumar
d. Name of the accused, his : Pradeep S/o Sh. Jatin
parentage and address. R/o Dusra Pusta, Usman Pur, Delhi.
Permanent Address :- Village-Bole Pur
PS-Choug, Rasta, Distt.-Gardhman,
West Bengal.
e. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
f. Offence complained of or proved : 25/54/59 Arms Act.
g. Final order : Acquitted
h. Date of such order : 20.02.07
I. Brief reasons for the decision of the case.
The above named accused was charge
sheeted by SHO P.S. Bhajan Pura U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act with the allegations that on 26.11.06 at about 6.40 PM at Gamri Road, Near Tikona Park, Bhajan Pura, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Bhajan Pura, the accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife in contravention of notification of DAD. As the accused had kept the knife in his possession without any license or permit, hence, the above said FIR U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act was registered at P.S. Bhajan Pura against the accused.
The investigation of the case was conducted and during the investigation, site plan was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused was arrested and after completing the other formal investigation, the challan was presented in the court for trial.
The copies of challan were supplied to the accused and charge U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The statement of accused U/s. 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein he claimed himself innocent on the plea of false implication, he does not prefer to lead evidence in his defence.
In its support, the prosecution has examined only one witness i. e. PW-1 Ct. Parmod Kumar is the material witness as knife was recovered from the accused in his presence.
PW-1 Ct. Pramod Kumar has deposed that on 26.11.06, while patrolling, when he reached at Village-Gamri, he saw that accused was coming from main pusta via fifth pusta towards Gamri village, who after seeing him, immediately turned back. On suspicion the accused was chased and apprehended and from search of accused one buttondar knife was recovered. He further deposed that HC Sukhram reached at the spot after his intimation given to PS through telephone and he handed over accused alongwith one buttondar knife to him. He further deposed that IO prepared sealed pulinda of knife and sealed with the seal of SRS. He also proved Sketch, seizure memo, arrest memo and personal search memo as Ex. PW1/B, PW1/C, PW1/D and PW1/E respectively.
During cross examination this witness confirmed that no action was taken by the IO against those persons, who refused to join the investigation on asking of IO.
I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel besides going through the evidence on record carefully and in my considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. First of all, no independent witness was examined by the IO. Although, they were easily available at the spot as spot is a busy area. PW1 has confirmed in his cross examination that no action was taken by the IO against those persons, who refused to join the investigation on asking of IO, which shows that public persons were present at the spot at the time of apprehension of accused. It appears that IO did not make sincere efforts to join the public witnesses as he was aware that they will not support the case of prosecution.
In an authority reported as 1989 Criminal Law Journal 127 (Delhi High Court ) titled as Pawan Kumar Vs The Delhi Administration , wherein it was held that :-
"Arrest and search -- Arrest of accused and recovery of knife from his person by police -- No efforts made by the police to join any independent witness though several persons were present- Circumstance creates doubt on arrest and recovery of knife."
In Sans Pal Vs State of Delhi in 1999 (CRI.L.J 19 (SC) It was observed that:-
"Section 5- -- Arms Act (1959) , S-25 ---Conviction under---Country made pistol and live cartridges recovered from pocket of accused---Recovery of said arms based on evidence of police officials alone----No public witnesses even through available associated to witness recovery---convictions on basis of evidence of police officials---Cannot be maintained."
Hence, the non examination of independent witness is fatal to the case of prosecution.
Secondly, there is no corroborative evidence against the accused except testimony of PW1. Further, PW 1 has deposed that was present at the spot i.e. Gamri village while patrolling, when he apprehended the accused, but his departure or arrival entry in the Rojnamcha showing his actual presence at the spot has not been proved on record.
In the light of above discussion, I am of considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Hence, by giving him benefit of doubt, the accused is acquitted from this case. He be released from J/C, if not wanted in any other case. The case property be confiscated to the State after the expiry of period of appeal or revision. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court.
Dated:-20.02.2007 (SAN JEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA)
Metropolitan Magistrate
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi