Delhi District Court
The Recording Of Fir. In Case Mohd Hasim vs . State 1999 Vi Ad on 8 April, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH : MM : NEW DELHI
FIR No. 290/02
P.S. Hauz Khas
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
State v. Deep Singh
JUDGMENT :
a. Sl. No. of the case : 690/2 b. Date of Institution : 13.05.02
c. Date of Commission of Offence : 27.04.2002 d. Name of the complainant : S.I. Major Singh No. D577 e. Name of the accused and his : Deep Singh parentage and address S/o Sh. Pehalwan Singh R/o D-6191, Sultanpuri New Delhi.
f. Offence complained of : U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act g. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty h. Order reserved : 08.04.2010 i. Final Order : Acquitted j. Date of such order : 08.04.2010 Brief reasons for the decision of the case.
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.04.2002 at about 11.15 am S.I. Major Singh along with Ct. Santosh Kumar was on petrolling duty in the area of Hauz Khas and when they reached at Siri Fort General Parking they saw accused Deep Singh standing near the dustbin situated by the side of northern wall of parking who on seeing them tried to escape so on suspicion he was chased and apprehended by both of them and on casual search of accused one buttondar knife was recovered from his possession so complaint was filed in PS Malviya Nagar and FIR was got registered against F.I.R. No. 290/02 Page 1 / 8 the accused U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act. Statement of witnesses were recorded, site plan was prepared, accused was arrested and after completion of all necessary investigation challan U/s 173 Cr.P.C was presented in the Court for trial.
2. Accused was produced from J/C to face the trial so copy of challan as required U/s 207 Cr. PC was supplied to him, thereafter case was fixed for consideration of charge.
3. After hearing arguments and on perusal of record, prima facie offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, was made out against the accused Deep SIngh. Charge was framed accordingly against the accused on 27.05.04. Thereafter case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. Prosecution has produced and examined as many as four witnesses i.e, PW 1 W/ASI Adesh Kumari, PW 2 Ct. Santosh Kumar, PW 3 H.Ct. Sudesh Kumar and PW 4 S.I. Major Singh the complainant.
5. PW 1 W/ASI Adesh Kumari testified that she was Duty Officer on 27.04.02 and on receipt of rukka, she registered F.I.R. Ex. PW 1/A and thereafter she put her endorsement on rukka Ex. PW 1/B. Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW 1.
6. PW2 Ct. Santosh Kumar testified that on 27.4.2002 he along with S.I. Major Singh was on petrolling duty and they reached at Siri Fort General Parking at 11.14 am where they saw accused present in the court near the wall from the side of dustbin who on F.I.R. No. 290/02 Page 2 / 8 seeing them tried to escape so on suspicion they apprehended him and during his casual search one gararidar knife was recovered from right side pocket of wearing Kurta of accused. PW 2 further testified that sketch of knife Ex.PW2/A was prepared after taking its measurement and put the same into pullanda which was sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex. PW 2/B, seal after use was handed over to him. Thereafter, I.O. prepared rukka and handed over to him so he got the F.I.R. registered through DO in P.S. and thereafter further investigation was handed over to H.Ct. Sudesh Kumar so they both came to the spot. PW 2 further testified that S.I. Major Singh handed over accused along with all documents to H.Ct. Sudesh Kumar so he prepared site plan. PW 2 further testified that I.O. arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW 2/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW 2/D. PW 2 identified the knife correctly as Ex. P1.
Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW 2.
7. PW 3 H.Ct. Sudesh Kumar testified that on 27.04.2002 investigation of this case marked to him so DO handed over copyof F.I.R. Ex. PW 1/A and rukka Ex. PW 3/A to him so he along with Ct. Santosh Kumar reached on the spot where S.I. Major Singh handed over accused, pullanda, seizure memo Ex. PW 2/B and sketch of knife Ex. PW 2/A to him thereafter he prepared site plan at the instance of S.I. Major Singh Ex. PW 3/B. PW 3 further testified that accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW 2/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW 2/D and all the documents bears his signature at point B. Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW 3.
8. PW 4 S.I. Major Singh testified that on 27.4.02 he along F.I.R. No. 290/02 Page 3 / 8 with Ct. Santosh was on petrolling duty at Siri Fort Parking and when they reached near dustbin they saw one person standing there who tried to escape on seeing them so they apprehended him after cashing about 15-20 paces and during his casual search one buttondar knife was recovered from his right pocket of kurta. PW 4 further testified that sketch of knife was prepared vide memo Ex. PW 2/A and same was put into pullanda which was sealed with the seal of sketch of knife and he also seized the same vide memo Ex. PW 2/B, seal after use was handed over to Ct. Santosh Kumar. Thereafter, he prepared rukka Ex. PW 3/A and got the F.I.R. registered through Ct. Santosh Kumar who came back at the spot with original rukka and copy of F.I.R. PW 4 further testified that in the meantime H.Ct. Sudesh Kumar reached on the spot for further investigation so he handed over accused and sealed pullanda to second I.O. who prepared site plan Ex. PW 3/A at his instance. PW 3 identified the knife correctly as Ex. P1.
Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW 4.
9. Statement of accused Deep Singh was recorded U/s 281 Cr.P.C wherein he has denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. However, accused did not prefer to lead any defence evidence.
10. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the accused and have also carefully perused the entire material on record and the relevant provisions of the law.
11. On careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence on record I find that no corroborative, consistent reliable and sufficient F.I.R. No. 290/02 Page 4 / 8 evidence to make up the edifice of the prosecution case as has been produced by the prosecution. Moreover, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence.
12. It is the case of prosecution that accused was apprehended by the PW2 and PW4 on suspicion while he was standing near dustbin at northern wall of Sirifort General Parking and on seeing them accused tried to ran away from the spot so he was apprehended by PW2 and PW3 and on search a buttondar knife was recovered from possession of accused. PW 4 prepared the sketch of knife vide memo Ex. PW 2/A, seized knife vide memo Ex. PW 2/C and after registration of case PW 4 came on the spot along with PW 2 and arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW 2/C.
13. To prove its case Prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses. PW2 and PW 4 are the recovery witnesses and PW3 H.C. Sudesh Kumar is second I.O. of the case. Testimonies of both the recovery witnesses i.e. PW 2 and PW4 are not corroborated with each other as PW2 testified that after registration of case F.I.R. he along with PW3 came at the spot together whereas PW 4 testified that first PW2 came at the spot with rukka and copy of F.I.R. and then in the meantime PW4 reached on the spot for further investigation. On the other hand PW3 deposed that he along with PW2 came on the spot. So there is material contradiction in the testimonies of PW2, 3 and 4 and their contradictory statement cannot be relied upon for the purpose of conviction of accused. It is interesting that the complainant/PW4 has not testified a single word about the description i.e. length, breadth of the knife, admittedly he took the measurement of the recovered knife while he prepared the sketch of knife Ex. PW 2/A. F.I.R. No. 290/02 Page 5 / 8
14. Further neither PW 2 nor PW 4 have deposed anything about the breadth of blade of knife. It is also pertinent that Ex. PW 2/A does not show the breadth of blade of knife which was recovered from the possession of accused. As per notification of Delhi Administration: Delhi dated 20.10.1980 the breadth of blade of knife must be 1.72 c.m. or more. In view of this, it cannot be said that accused has violated the terms of notification issued by Delhi Administration regarding breadth of blade of a buttondar knife.
15. PW 3 S.I. Major Singh in his examination in chief have deposed that the knife was put into pullanda and it was sealed with the seal of SK by him and seal after use was given to PW 2. Testimony of PW 3 is totally silent as to whether any seal handing over memo or seal returning memo was prepared. Why such memos were not prepared, which constitutes a material link evidence. Such linking evidence is lacking in the prosecution case.
16. The perusal of the sketch of the knife Ex. PW 2/A and seizure memo Ex PW 2/B shows that FIR number is mentioned therein. There is not a single word in the testimonies of PW 3 as to when and at what stage FIR number was inserted in Ex PW 2/A and Ex PW 2/B. Moreover, the testimony of PW2 and PW 4 are also totally silent on this aspect. In these circumstances, either FIR was recorded posterior in time or that documents were prepared after the recording of FIR. In case Mohd Hasim Vs. State 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 569 (Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. A Siddiqui) it was observed that documents prepared before registering the FIR bears FIR numbers, meaning thereby either FIR was recorded posterior in time F.I.R. No. 290/02 Page 6 / 8 or that documents were prepared after the recording of FIR, and was hold that in both case, prosecution case would collapse.
17. In these circumstances, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence.
18. Apart from this, the presence of PW 2 and 3 at the spot is not proved. If they had departed from PS for patrolling duty the entry to this effect must exist in the Roznamcha but that has not been proved, raising an adverse presumption against the prosecution U/s. 114 (g) of the Evidence Act and if the said Roznamcha had been produced it would have not shown their departure at all.
19. It is true evidence it to be weighted and not counted but in this case whatever evidence has been produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to fortify the edifice of the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to prove all the links, the benefit of doubt has been given to the accused. In view of this I am fortified with the observations made in the case State of Rajasthan Vs. Daulat Ram 1980 CAR 169 (SC) where it was held that prosecution failed to prove all the links. Accused was acquitted.
20. In view of the above, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused and he is given the benefit of doubt and therefore accused Deep Singh is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s. 25 (1B) (b) Arms Act.
Announced in the Open Court (RAVINDER SINGH) On 08.04.2010 Metropolitan Magistrate: New Delhi.
F.I.R. No. 290/02 Page 7 / 8 F.I.R. 290/02 P.S. Malviya Nagar 08.04.2010 Present : Ld. APP for the State. Accused on bail. Final arguments heard. Put up for orders at 3.30 PM (Ravinder Singh) M.M./N.D./ 08.04.2010 08.04.2010 Present: As before.
Vide my separate judgment/order announced in open court, accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 25 (1B) (b) Arms Act.
Bail bond of accused is cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Documents, if any of the accused and surety be returned after cancellation of endorsements.
The file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
(Ravinder Singh) MM/ND/ 08.04.2010 F.I.R. No. 290/02 Page 8 / 8