Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs Dilshad on 26 July, 2014

                                                1

       IN THE COURT OF MR. PRITAM SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF 
      METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE/ SOUTH EAST DISTRICT/ SAKET
                                                             
                 COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.      

Unique Identification no. 02406R0403902010
Case no. RBT­05/6 dated 23.01.2014
FIR No. 238/10
PS­Badarpur
State  Vs  Dilshad

JUDGEMENT
        S. No. of Case               :       RBT­05/6 dated 23.01.2014
        Date of Commission           :       11.9.2010
        of offence
        Name of Complainant          :       Ct. Hardeep
        Name and address             :       Dilshad S/o Sh.Farid Ahmad,
        of accused                           R/o H­12, Okhla Phase­II, Sanjay Colony,
                                             New Delhi.
        Offence Complained           :       U/s. 25/54/59 of Arms Act
        Plea of accused              :       Not guilty
        Arguments heard              :       26.07.2014
        Date of judgment             :       26.07.2014 
        Final order                  :       Acquitted

1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.9.2010 at 6.30 p.m. at Mathura Road, near Mehra Petrol Pump, Badarpur Border, New Delhi, the accused was found in possession of a button actuated knife in contravention of the notification issued by Delhi Administration.

FIR No. 238/10 State Vs Dilshad 1 of 5 2

2. Charge­sheet was filed in the court and the accused was supplied complete set of documents. Thereafter, vide order dated 27.9.2010, charge for the offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act framed against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to prove charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined two witnesses. HC Sumer, who was the Duty Officer, was examined as PW­1 and Ct. Harbir, who was the recovery witness, was examined as PW­2. During prosecution evidence, the following documents were exhibited :­

(i) Copy of the FIR ­ Ex.PW1/A

(ii) Endorsement on the rukka ­ Ex.PW1/B

(iii) Complaint ­ Ex.PW2/A

(iv) Seizure memo of the case property ­ Ex.PW2/B

(v) Seizure memo of recovered knife and punch ­ Ex.PW2/C & D

(vi) Arrest memo of accused ­ Ex.PW2/E

(vii) Personal search memo of accused ­ Ex.PW2/F

(viii) Case properties i.e. knife and punch ­ Ex.P­1 & P­2

4. The statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 26.7.2014 wherein he denied the deposition of witnesses against him being false & interested witnesses. Accused did not lead any defence evidence.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused and considered carefully.

6. The prosecution has examined only two witnesses and both of them are police witnesses. PW­2 deposed that on 11.09.2010, he was on area patrolling FIR No. 238/10 State Vs Dilshad 2 of 5 3 duty and during duty at about 6.30 p.m., he reached Mathura Road, near Mehra Petrol Pump, near Badarpur border and he saw that accused was coming from the said of Badarpur Border on foot. PW­2 further deposed that on seeing him in uniform, he (accused) became nervous and turned back and started moving fast. On suspicion, he asked him to stop, but accused did not stop and moved fast. After chasing 20 to 25 steps, he caught the accused and on his cursory search, from his right front side pocket of his pant, a buttondar knife was found and a punch was recovered from right back side pocket of his pant. PW­2 further deposed that during inquiry, his name was revealed as Dilshand son of Farid, resident of Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase­II, New Delhi. PW­2 further deposed that he informed telephonically to Duty Officer. HC Birpal came at the spot and he handed over punch and buttondar knife and accused to HC Birpal. HC Birpal recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A which bore his signature at point 'A'. HC Birpal prepared pullandas of the said knife and punch and sealed the same with the seal of 'BPS' and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW2/B, which bore his signature at point 'A'. PW­2 further deposed that seal after use was handed over to him. HC Birpal also prepared sketches of recovered knife and punch Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D, which bore his signatures at points 'A', respectively. PW­2 further deposed that the total length of the knife was 24 c.m., length of handle was 13 c.m., length of blade was 11 c.m. and width of the blade was 2.5 c.m. and there was a button of brass made use for opening the knife and there were circle marks on the handle of the knife. HC Birpal made endorsement on his complaint and FIR No. 238/10 State Vs Dilshad 3 of 5 4 handed over the same to him for registration of the FIR. He came to the P.S. and got the FIR registered. After registration of the FIR, he returned back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to IO/HC Birpal. IO prepared the site plan at his instance. IO arrested and carried out personal search of the accused vide memos Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F, which bore his signatures at points 'A', respectively. The brother of accused namely Naushad was informed about arrest of the accused. IO recorded his statement. PW­2 correctly identified the accused and the case properties i.e. buttondar knife Ex.P­1 and punch Ex.P­2 in the court.

7. PW­2 did not depose in his deposition whether he had offered his personal search to the accused or not before searching accused, which raises a doubt in the story of the prosecution that knife and punch were recovered from the possession of the accused. As per the prosecution story, the knife and punch were recovered from the possession of the accused on 11.9.2010 at about 6.30 p.m. at Mathura Road, near Petrol Pump, near Badarpur border, New Delhi. PW­2 also did not depose that if he or IO had asked any public person to join the investigation. It appears that no sincere efforts were made to join the public persons as witnesses. The non­joining of public persons at such a common place and common time raise serious doubts in the story of the prosecution that knife and punch were recovered from the possession of accused.

8. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable FIR No. 238/10 State Vs Dilshad 4 of 5 5 doubts and it is well settled law that benefit of doubt always goes in favour of the accused.

9. Accordingly, the accused Dilshad S/o Sh.Farid Ahmad is acquitted from the charge of offence u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act. Case properties stand confiscated to the State.

        Announced in Open Court                  (PRITAM SINGH )
        Dated: 26.07.2014             Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 
                                     South East District/Saket Court Complex, 
                                                 New Delhi/26.07.2014




FIR No. 238/10                                State Vs  Dilshad                               5 of 5