Delhi District Court
State Of Punjab vs . Gurmel Singh 1991 (2) Recent Criminal on 23 July, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH :
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : NEW DELHI
F.I.R. 730/06
P.S. Malviya Nagar
U/s. 25 (1B) (b) Arms Act
State v. JAI BHAGWAN
S/o Lt. Shri Chandi Ram
R/o H.No. 269, Chirag Delhi,
New Delhi.
JUDGMENT :
a. Srl. No. of Case : 63/3 b. Date of Institution : 8.08.06 c. Date of Commission of Offence : 20.06.06 d. Name of the complainant : Ct. Ram Sharan, No. 2902/SD e. Offence complained of : U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act f. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty g. Date of reserving Judgment : 23.07.2010 h. Final order : Acquitted h. Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2010 Brief reasons for the decision of the case.
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20.06.06 at about 2.50 PM while Ct. Ram Sharan was on petrolling duty and reached at Chirag Delhi Tempo Stand Park he saw the accused sitting on a bench and on seeing him accused tried to slip away from the spot so he apprehended the accused on his casual search one buttondar F.I.R. no. 730/06 Page no. 1 of 8 knife was recovered from his possession so Ct. Ram Sharan informed the PP Sheikh Sarai, on this H.Ct. Pritam Singh came to the spot and got the case FIR registered against the accused U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act in PS Malviya Nagar through Ct. Ram Sharan. 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 against the accused.
2. Accused was summoned by the court 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 (1B) Arms Act, was made out against the accused Jai Bhagwan. Charge was framed accordingly against the accused on 17.04.08. Thereafter case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. Prosecution has produced and examined as many as three witnesses i.e, PW 1 H.Ct. Suresh Kumar, PW2 Ct. Ram Sharan and PW3 H.Ct. Pritam Singh.
5. PW 1 H.Ct. Suresh Kumar testified that he was Duty Officer on 20.06.06 and on receipt of rukka from Ct. Ram Sharan, he registered F.I.R. no. 730/06 Ex. PW 1/A and thereafter he put his endorsement on rukka Ex. PW 1/B. F.I.R. no. 730/06 Page no. 2 of 8 Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW 1.
6. PW2 Ct. Ram Sharan testified that on 20.06.06 he was on petrolling duty and reached at Chirag Delhi Tempo Stand Park where he saw accused Jai Bhagwan sitting on the bench and on seeing him accused tried to flee away so he apprehended the accused and during his casual search one buttondar knife was recovered from the right pocket of his pant. Thereafter he informed the PP Sheikh Sarai through telephone so H.Ct. Pritam Singh came on the spot and he handed over the accused to him along with knife. PW2 further testified that I.O. recorded his statement Ex. PW 2/A and prepared sketch of knife Ex. PW 2/B after taking its measurement. Thereafter knife was put into pullinda and sealed with the seal of PS and seal after use was handed over to him and knife was seized vide memo Ex. PW 2/C. PW2 further testified that I.O. prepared the rukka and got the case F.I.R. registered through him and also prepared the site plan Ex. PW 2/D at his instance. Thereafter accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW 2/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW 2/F. PW2 identified the knife correctly as Ex. P1.
During cross examination PW2 denied the suggestion to the effect that accused was lifted from his house and thereafter false recovery has been planted upon him.
7. PW3 H.Ct. Pritam Singh testified that on 20.06.06 he was assigned DD No. 11 so he reached on the spot where Ct. Ram Sharan handed over accused along with knife to him, thereafter he recorded F.I.R. no. 730/06 Page no. 3 of 8 statement of Ct. Ram Sharan Ex. PW 2/A. PW3 further testified that he measured the knife and prepared the sketch of knife Ex. PW 2/B. Thereafter he put the knife into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of PS and seized vide memo Ex. PW 2/C and seal after use was handed over to Ct. Ram Sharan. Thereafter he prepared rukka Ex. PW 3/A on the statement of Ct. Ram Sharan and got the case F.I.R. registered through Ct. Ram Sharan. PW3 further testified that he prepared site plan Ex. PW 2/D at the instance of Ct. Ram Sharan and thereafter arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW 2/E and conducted personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW 2/F. PW3 also identified the knife correctly as Ex. P1.
During cross examination PW2 denied the suggestion to the effect that accused was lifted from his house and thereafter false recovery has been planted upon him and that all the proceedings were done at while sitting in P.S.
8. Statement of accused Jai Bhagwan 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.
9. I have heard the ld. APP for the State and accused and have also carefully perused the entire record and the relevant provisions of the law.
10. On careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence on F.I.R. no. 730/06 Page no. 4 of 8 record I find that no corroborative, consistent reliable and sufficient evidence to make up the edifice of the prosecution case has been produced by the prosecution. Moreover, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence.
11. It is the case of prosecution that accused was apprehended by the PW2 who was on petrolling duty at Chirag Delhi Park near Taxi Stand where accused was found sitting on a bench and on his search a buttondar knife was recovered from possession of accused. PW 3 came at the spot prepared the sketch of knife Ex. PW 2/B and seized the knife vide memo Ex. PW 2/C and after registration of case F.I.R. Ex. PW 1/A, PW3 arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW 1/E.
12. Prosecution has examined one witness of recovery of buttondar knife from the possession of the accused i.e. PW2 Ct. Ramesh and PW3 is I.O. who came at the spot after assignment of investigation of the case to him whereas PW1 is Duty Officer who registered the case F.I.R. Ex. PW 1/A.
13. During the investigation of the case neither public witnesses were joined nor seems to be any sincere efforts made in this regard, when it was possible to do as the time of apprehension of accused is day time i.e. 2.50 PM and the place of recovery of knife from the possession of accused is stated to be Chirag Delhi Tempo Stand Park which is a public place. PW2 and PW3 both have not deposed a F.I.R. no. 730/06 Page no. 5 of 8 single word about joining of any public person as a witness during the proceedings done by them, however PW3 in rukka Ex. PW 2/A has deposed that he requested 34 public persons on the spot to join the investigation but none agreed and left the spot on justified grounds. So this makes the case of the prosecution weak and suspicious. In State of Punjab vs. Gurmel Singh 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reporters 361 Hon'ble Court held that : "W here there were 20 shops nearby and the investigating officer had ample opportunity to join independent witness statement of official witnesses would not be sufficient to convict the accused. Contention of the prosecution that the police officials had no ill will to involve the accused in false case was repelled.' '
14. PW 3 I.O./HCt. Pritam Singh in his examination in chief have deposed that the knife was put into pullanda and it was sealed with the seal of PS by him and seal after use was given to PW2. 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.
15. The perusal of the sketch of the knife Ex. PW 2/B and seizure memo Ex PW 2/C shows that FIR number is mentioned therein. There is not a single word in the testimony of PW3 as to when and at what stage FIR number was inserted in Ex PW 2/B and Ex PW 2/C. Moreover, the testimony of PW2 is also totally silent on F.I.R. no. 730/06 Page no. 6 of 8 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 or that documents were prepared after the recording of FIR, and was hold that in both case, prosecution case would collapse.
16. In these circumstances, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence.
17. Apart from this, the presence of PW2 at the spot is not proved. If he had departed from PS for performing petrolling 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.
18. 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 th 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 F.I.R. no. 730/06 Page no. 7 of 8 proved all the links. Accused was acquitted.
19. 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 Jai Bhagwan is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 25 (1B) of the Arms Act for which he stands charged.
Announced in the Open Court
on 23.07.2010 (RAVINDER SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate:
New Delhi.
c
F.I.R. no. 730/06 Page no. 8 of 8