Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/117/2007 on 24 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI M.M.03
DISTT. NE, KKD COURTS DELHI
FIR No. 117/07
PS Khajoori Khas
JUDGMENT
a. Sl. No. of the case : 25/03/08
b. Date of commission of offence : 19.03.07
c. Name of the complainant : Ct. Nathu Singh
d. Name of the accused, his Ravi
Parentage and address: s/o Sohan Singh
r/o House of Ram Bhawan, H.
No. 1267, B Block, Sonia
Vihar, Delhi.
e. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f. Offence complained of or proved: 25/54/59 Arms Act
g. Final order : Acquitted
h. Date of Institution : 30.03.07
i. Judgment reserved on : N.A
j. Judgment delivered on : 24.05.11
k. Unique ID No. : 02402R0252722007
FIR No. 117/07 1/9
Brief Facts
As per prosecution version on 19.03.07, Ct. Nathu Singh was present in beat No. 3 while patrolling. It is stated that at about 6:30 PM while patrolling, he reached near Pushpanjli Public School, Tukmir Pur Road and one secret informer met him and gave information that one boy aged about 19/20 years is standing at Dhalan in front of Delhi Police Gate, Tukmir Pur Road, who is having buttondar knife in his possession.
It is stated that upon receipt of information, Ct. Nathu Singh went to spot along with secret informer and apprehended accused at instance of secret informer at about 6:40 PM. It is stated that on frisking accused, one buttondar knife was recovered from right hand side pocket of pant of accused. It is stated that during this time, IO/HC Jai Singh reached at the spot and Ct. Nathu Singh handed over accused along with recovered knife to HC Jai Singh. FIR No. 117/07 2/9 It is stated that statement of Ct. Nathu Singh was recorded by IO/HC Jai Singh.
It is stated that during investigation, HC Jai Singh asked 3/ 4 passersby to join the investigation but everyone left telling their genuine reasons.
It is stated that without finding other option, HC Jai Singh opened knife with the help of button and sketch of knife was prepared and same was seized by sealing it in a pulinda with the seal bearing initials of 'RSR'. It is stated that seal after use was handed over to Ct. Nathu Singh.
It is stated that Tehrir was sent to PS Khajoori Khas through Ct. Nathu Singh and FIR was got registered.
It is stated that IO during investigation inspected site and prepared site plan and recorded statements of witnesses. It is stated that thereafter personal search of accused was conducted and accused was got medically examined.
FIR No. 117/07 3/9
After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before court on 30.03.07. After appearance of accused before court, provisions of section 207 Cr. PC were complied with.
Charge u/s 25 Arms Act was framed against accused on 08.09.08 to which accused pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution examined following witnesses in order to prove its case: PW 1 ASI Sahab Singh PW 2 HC Nathu Singh PW 3 HC Jai Singh PE was closed on 21.03.11 on submissions of Ld. APP for state .
S/A u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded on 21.03.11 in which all incriminating material appearing in evidence against accused was put to accused to which accused stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in present case. He further stated that nothing has been recovered from his possession and case property was falsely FIR No. 117/07 4/9 planted upon him.
Accused did not lead any defence evidence. I have heard final arguments addressed by respective counsels and perused the record.
Decision and Brief reasons for the same Before giving my findings with respect to present case, I will discuss evidence led by prosecution.
PW 1 ASI Sahab Singh is Duty Officer who has proved endorsement on rukka vide Ex. 1/A and carbon copy of FIR vide Ex. PW 1/B. PW 2 HC Nathu Singh is complainant and recovery witness who has exhibited his statement recorded by IO vide Ex. PW 2/A, sketch of allegedly recovered knife vide Ex. PW 2/B, seizure memo of allegedly recovered knife vide Ex. PW 2/C, arrest memo and personal search memo of accused vide Ex. PW 2/D and 2/E respectively. He has identified case property before court vide Ex. P1.
PW 3 HC Jai Singh is IO in present case who has exhibited FIR No. 117/07 5/9 rukka vide Ex. 3/A, site plan vide Ex. PW 3/B and copy of notification vide Ex. PW 3/C. He has identified case property before court vide Ex. P1.
After considering respective arguments and evidence led by prosecution, I am of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons as to why I have arrived at such an opinion are as follows:
Firstly, no DD entry has been brought on record by prosecution in order to show that PW 2 and 3 were indeed on patrolling duty on the day of alleged recovery of knife from accused. It is an important missing link in the version of prosecution.
Secondly, no malkhana Register has been produced by prosecution in order to prove that allegedly recovered knife was indeed deposited in malkhana. This is an important missing link in story of prosecution and tempering of case property in these circumstances can not be ruled out.
Thirdly, as per arrest memo Ex PW 2/D, information of FIR No. 117/07 6/9 arrest of accused was given to one Kavita but no where signatures/ thumb impression of Kavita have been obtained by IO on arrest memo. It is a missing link in prosecution version and information of arrest of accused if given to some of his relative/ known person, receiving should have been taken by IO so as version of prosecution seems to be more authentic.
Further on carbon copy of FIR Ex. PW 1/B, general dairy reference: entry No. 36A has been written in original ink( only numerals 36) and it seems that overwriting has been done on FIR. In endorsement on rukka also, it seems that DD No.has been overwritten. No explanation in this regard has been offered by PW 1 / DO ASI Sahab Singh. It creates doubt regarding genuineness of prosecution story.
Further as per prosecution story PW 2 HC Nathu Singh is recovery witness. He allegedly recovered buttondar knife from accused as per his deposition. He in his examination in chief has not stated that he offered his personal search before taking search of accused nor does FIR No. 117/07 7/9 he says that he asked any public witness to join proceedings before search of person of accused. PW 2 in his cross examination has unequivocally admitted that he did not offer his search to accused before taking his search. In his cross examination, PW 2 by manner of his answer seems to have suggested that it was IO who asked passersby to join the investigation. He in his cross examination has admitted that the spot was a thoroughfare. Principles of natural justice demanded that before search of accused, PW 2 should have offered his personal search to accused and should have reduced this fact into writing which has not been done in present case and which fact diminishes credibility of prosecution version. Public persons should have been asked to join search proceedings by PW 2 ( recovery witness) as in Arms Act case, joining of public witness before search of person of accused is material. Non joining of public witnesses causes a dent in credibility of version of prosecution and had public witnesses witnessed search of accused, prosecution version would have been more authentic. This is not to say that testimony of police officials is not reliable but in the FIR No. 117/07 8/9 circumstances of present case when there are so many important missing links in story of prosecution, it would have given impetus to version of prosecution.
In the circumstances as mentioned in various preceding paras, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt as version of prosecution is not trustworthy on account of reasons mentioned in various paras of this judgment ( tempering in case property cannot be ruled out, cannons of fair procedure have not been followed and there are some important missing links in the story of prosecution). It is a fit case in which benefit of doubt deserves to be given to accused which is accordingly given. Accused is acquitted of offence u/s 25 of Arms Act. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (SONU AGNIHOTRI)
Dt. 24.05.11 MM03, District NE,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 117/07 9/9