Delhi District Court
State vs Ved Pal on 13 February, 2015
THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 07, ROOM NO. 137,
TIS HAZARI COURTS (CENTRAL), DELHI.
STATE
VERSUS
VED PAL
FIR No. 37/04
P.S RSR
U/S: 25/54/59 Arms Act.
1. Serial No. of the case : 02401R5954092004
2. Date of commission of offence: 22.06.2004
3. Name of the Complainant : SI DILBAGH SINGH
PS Sarai Rohilla
4. Name of the accused, and VED PAL,
his parentage and residence: S/o Sh. Mange Ram,
R/o VPO Mantodi, Mohalla
Pachausia, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar,
Haryana.
5. Date when judgment : 30.01.2015
was reserved
6. Date when Judgement : 13.02.2015
was pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : Section 25/54/59 Arms Act.
or proved
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
9. Final Judgment : Acquitted for the offence U/s
25/54/59 Arms Act.
FIR No. 37/04
PS- RSR
State Vs. Ved Pal Page 1/11
Brief statement of reasons for the decision of the case:
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 22.06.2004 at about 12.30 PM, Inspector O.P Sharma received secret information that two persons would come to railway station and will pass through foot overbridge and that they are both carrying illegal arms. Upon this two raiding parties were constituted: one headed by SI Dilbagh and constituting of HC Gangabir and Ct Rajnath. The other other team was headed by ASI Gyanender and consisted of HC Gurdas and Ct Ranbir. Both the teams went to the spot and at about 1.00 PM, accused Vedpal and Bhupender (not accused in the present case) were seen going from main gate, railway station towards foot overbridge. On the pointing out by the secret informer, both Bhupender and accused Vedpal were apprehended. Accused Vedpal was apprehended by the team headed by SI Dilbagh Singh and he was found in possession of one countrymade pistol 8mm/.315 bore having total length of 28 cms, barrel 17.5 cms, butt 10.5 cms without any license or permit. Ct Gangabir was sent with the rukka for registration of FIR and the same was got registered as FIR No. 37/04, PS SRRS. Thereafter, Ct Gangabir came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO HC Devender upon which IO arrested the accused Vedpal vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/C. The personal search memo of accused was conducted vide Ex. PW3/D.
2. Arguments on charge were heard and charge U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act, 1959 was framed against the accused Vedpal on 06.10.2006 (amended on 30.01.2015) to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed FIR No. 37/04 PS- RSR State Vs. Ved Pal Page 2/11 trial.
3. Prosecution has examined ten witnesses in support of its case. 3.1 PW1, W/HC Savita, entered witness box on 12.07.2007. She stated that on 22.06.2004 at about 12.30 PM secret information was received at Police Station by Inspector O.P Sharma. She stated that she recorded this information vide DD entry No. 8A Ex. PW1/A. She also proved registration of FIR vide Ex. PW1/B. 3.2 PW2, HC Narsi Ram, entered witness box on 12.07.2007. He deposed that on 04.11.2004, he had received file of this case from the SHO, PS Sarai Rohilla and after checking the file, he submitted it in the Court.
3.3 PW3, Ct Rajnath, entered the witness box on 12.07.2007. He stated that on 22.06.2004 at about 12.30 PM, he was present in PS SRRS alongwith SI Dilbagh Singh, ASI Gyanender, HC Gurdas, Ct Gangabir and Ct Ranbir when secret information was received by Inspector O.P Sharma. He stated that SI Dilbagh Singh had proceeded to the spot and asked public persons to join investigation but none agreed. He also stated that a countrymade pistol was recovered from right side dub of pant of accused. The weapon was empty. Sketch of weapon prepared by IO is Ex. PW2/A and the seizure memo is Ex. PW2/B. Arrest memo of accused is Ex. PW2/C and his personal search memo is Ex. PW2/D. 3.4 PW4, HC Gangabir, entered the witness box on 01.03.2008. He deposed that secret information was received by SI Dilbagh Singh. He stated that he was part of the team headed by SI Dilbagh Singh. He FIR No. 37/04 PS- RSR State Vs. Ved Pal Page 3/11 identified the accused and stated that a countrymade pistol was recovered from the right pocket of pant of the accused. He stated that after registration of FIR, SI Dilbagh handed over accused and sealed pullanda containing the weapon to HC Devender Kumar. When the case property was brought in the Court by MHC(M), the Court observed that the same could be taken out from the sealed envelope even without breaking the seal because the envelope was torn and the original pullanda also had open space from which it could be taken out. He identified the accused as well as the case property.
In his cross examination, he stated that there was no specific marking on the weapon against which it was observed that some numbers were engraved on the weapon. He stated that the distance between the police station and the foot overbridge was about 100 yards if going straight or 300 yards if going from the side of the main gate. He stated that his team has reached the spot from the main gate side. He could not recall whether the secret informer had accompanied the team. He stated that the accused was apprehended at the gate just above Platform No. 2. He stated that the accused did not try to run away or take out the arms. He stated that Ex. PW3/B had been written from top to bottom when he signed it.
3.5 PW5, SI Dilbagh Singh, entered the witness box on 01.03.2008 and stated inter alia, that he had received secret information at about 12.30 PM. He identified the accused as well as the case property.
In his cross examination, he stated that Inspector O.P Sharma had received secret information in his presence. He stated that the FIR No. 37/04 PS- RSR State Vs. Ved Pal Page 4/11 team went to the spot taking straight route from the Police Station which is around 100 meters long. He stated that accused had initially tried to run away.
3.6 PW6, HC Satbir Singh, entered the witness box on 22.07.2011 and proved the sanction order U/s 39 Arms Act as Ex. PW6/A. 3.7 PW7, SI Gyanendra, entered the witness box on 23.07.2012. He stated inter alia, that on receipt of secret information, his team proceeded towards main gate, Railway Station and met secret informer. He also stated that accused Vedpal had taken out his weapon on seeing the police team.
In his cross examination, he stated that accused Vedpal had tried to flee but was apprehended after about 10 paces. He also stated that the accused had only taken out the pistol but not aimed at the police. He denied the suggestion that IO had noted down names and addresses of some public persons after which he was confronted with statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C Ex. PW7/D1.
3.8 PW8, HC Ranbir, entered the witness box on 27.07.2012. He stated inter alia, that on 16.06.2004 at about 1.00 PM, SI Dilbagh Singh received secret information and he prepared two raiding parties. He could not recall the name of the accused but identified him in the Court. He stated that one knife was recovered from the possession of the accused during his cursory search which he had kept below his belt. He could not identify the case property since he was not part of the raiding team which apprehended the accused Vedpal.
In his cross examination, he stated that it was slip of tongue FIR No. 37/04 PS- RSR State Vs. Ved Pal Page 5/11 when he said the case property to be a knife. He also stated that accused had tried to run away but could not do so. 3.9 PW9, Inspector Omprakash Sharma, entered the witness box on 08.04.2013. He stated inter alia, that he had received secret information and constituted raiding party.
3.10 PW10, HC Devender, entered the witness box on 08.04.2013. He stated inter alia, that he had prepared site plan at the instance of SI Dilbagh Singh and the same is Ex. PW10/A. He stated that he had obtained sanction U/s 39 Arms Act from the DCP. He correctly identified the accused.
In his cross examination, he stated that he did not call any public persons to join investigation. He could not say if accused was arrested from Najafgarh a day before the day of incident.
4. Statement of accused Ved Pal was recorded on 19.07.2013 wherein he denied his involvement in the present case and stated that he had been falsely implicated. He stated that he wished to lead evidence in his defence.
5. Accused has examined one witness DW Sunil Kumar in his defence evidence.
DW1, Sunil Kumar, entered the witness box on 05.07.2014 and stated that he was working as a helper in private bus in the year 2004. During that period he was residing at Najafgarh in a rented accommodation with his friends Bhupender, Vedpal, Ashok Kumar and Satyawan. He stated that on 21.06.2004 at night, they were all sleeping in their room when 78 persons knocked their door and told FIR No. 37/04 PS- RSR State Vs. Ved Pal Page 6/11 them that they were from Crime Branch. They arrested all the persons and took them to Crime Branch Office, Sarai Rohilla. He stated that they were all kept sitting in the Police Station the entire night and in the morning, three persons including himself were let free but two of his friends namely Vedpal and Bhupender were implicated in false cases. He stated that nothing was recovered in his presence from the possession of the accused Vedpal. Later on, he came to know that Dilbagh Singh had implicated accused Vedpal due to enmity.
In his cross examination, he stated that accused Vedpal was a contractor of private bus and he used to pay rent of the rented accommodation. He stated that the persons who visited their house at about 11.30 at night were in civil dress. He stated that he did not make any complaint to the police against police officials who took them to Police Station.
6. I have heard the Ld APP for the State as well Ld counsel for the accused.
7. The ingredients of the offence U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act are satisfied if it is proved that the accused was found in possession of arms or ammunition which is in violation of the notification issued by Administrator Union Territory of Delhi or without any license issued by the competent authority.
8. The present FIR was lodged on the basis of complaint of SI Dilbagh Singh who was leading the raiding party which apprehended the accused Vedpal. This raiding party was allegedly constituted by Inspector O.P Sharma who had received secret information on FIR No. 37/04 PS- RSR State Vs. Ved Pal Page 7/11 22.06.2004 at about 12.30 PM. The DD entry regarding receipt of this secret information is Ex. PW1/A. However, this entry does not talk about any constitution of raiding team or their departure. There were six police officials (03 in each raiding team) who went to the spot upon receipt of this information but none as filed entry of his departure from the Police Station.
8.1 As per Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, which is reproduced as under;
"Chapter 22 rule 49 Matters to be entered in Register no. II. The following matters shall amongst others, be entered: (c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal. Note:The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained".
9. It has been held in Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that;
"wherein it has been observed that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the Courts will have to approach FIR No. 37/04 PS- RSR State Vs. Ved Pal Page 8/11 their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
10. Further, no independent witness to the arrest or recovery has been examined by the prosecution.
Section 100(4) Cr.P.C casts duty upon the police officer to call upon two or more independent witnesses before making a search. The accused was apprehended at about 1.00 pm in summer at Railway Station. The presence of number of public persons at the spot at such time is natural. While some of the witnesses have deposed that public persons were asked to join investigation but they did not agree, none of the witness named the public persons who were asked to join investigation as a witness. Ex. PW7/D1 records that some persons whose name and address are mentioned therein were asked to join investigation but they showed their unwillingness to become witness in the case. These persons though present have not been called as witness.
11. The failure of police to bring their DD entries and join independent witness assumes of the more importance in view of the peculiar facts of this case. The case property i.e the very bone of controversy when brought to the Court was as good as unsealed. The FIR No. 37/04 PS- RSR State Vs. Ved Pal Page 9/11 Court had observed that the weapon could be taken out of the pullanda and envelope because they were both torn and there was no requirement for breaking open the seal for removing of weapon. In such eventuality, no weight can be placed on the identification of the case property by various prosecution witnesses. The ballistic report of the weapon though on the file has not been proved by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Infact, none of the witnesses have deposed anything about sending the weapon to its forensic examination.
12. There are major inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution witnesses. While the case of the prosecution is that secret information was received by Inspector O.P Sharma, PW4, PW5 and PW8 stated that the secret information was received by SI Dilbagh Singh. Apart from that while PW3 did not say if the accused ever tried to flee away or take out the weapon. PW4 specifically admitted that accused neither tried to run away nor take out the arms. Contrary to this, PW5 stated that accused had initially tried to run away. PW3, PW4 and PW5 were part of the same raiding team yet they have given different versions of the incident. PW7 went ahead to say that accused not only tried to flee away but also take out weapon on seeing police persons.
PW8, even though, he was not part of raiding team that arrested accused Vedpal, he was called as witness in this case and stated that accused Vedpal was found in possession of knife below his belt. He also give different date of incident i.e 16.06.2004. This witness also stated that accused had tried to run away but could not do so.
FIR No. 37/04PS- RSR State Vs. Ved Pal Page 10/11 Another point of controversy is the route taken by the raiding team to the spot where the accused allegedly apprehended. While PW5 stated that the team had taken straight route for the spot from the Police Station measuring 100 meters, PW4 who was part of the same team stated that the team had taken the longer route from the side of main gate which was about 300 yards long and not straight away which was about 100 yards long.
Yet, another discrepancy in the testimony of prosecution witness is that while some of he witness stated that they did not recall whether secret informer had accompanied them, some stated that secret informer met at the main gate railway station and some stated that secret informer had accompanied the team to the spot.
13. The present case is based entirely on the police persons and in view of such major discrepancies, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. The case of the prosecution gives ample scope to reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Ved Pal is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI) COURT ON 13.02.2015 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07 TIS HAZARI COURTS (CENTRAL) DELHI.
FIR No. 37/04PS- RSR State Vs. Ved Pal Page 11/11