Delhi District Court
State vs . Dalip on 28 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE10 : (SOUTH EAST) DELHI
STATE Vs. Dalip
FIR No: 227/13
P. S. Amar Colony
Date of Institution of Case : 28.06.2013
Date on which case reserved : 28.11.2013
for Judgment
Date of Judgment : Oral
JUDGEMENT :
a) Date of offence : 13.06.2013 b) Offence complained of : 25 Arms Act c) Name of complainant : HC Jai Prakash d) Name of accused, his : Dilip S/o Balram parentage & residence R/o Jhuggi/footpath, Kasturba Niketan, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. e) Plea of accused : Not guilty g) Final order : Acquitted Counsels for the Parties: Sh. Anil Paswan, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Kishore Kumar, Ld. Counsel from DLSA for accused. FIR no. 227/13 State Vs. Dalip PS Amar Colony 1 of 6 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
The case of the prosecution is that on 13.06.2013 at 6:50 pm at Park, Near Petrol Pump, S N Puri, New Delhi, accused Dilip was found in possession of one buttondar knife in contravention of the notification of Delhi administration. Accordingly, a case vide FIR No. 227/13 for offence u/s 25 Arms Act was registered with PS Amar Colony, New Delhi against accused Dilip.
2. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet for offence u/s 25 Arms Act was filed against the accused. Cognizance of the offence was taken. After supply of the copies to the accused, charge for the offence u/s 25 Arms Act was framed against accused Dilip which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined three prosecution witnesses. Ct. Mahender, recovery witness, has been examined as PW1. HC Jai Prakash, first IO, has been examined as PW2. HC Satya Prakash, second IO, has been examined as PW3. PE was closed vide order dated 28.11.2013.
4. After prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and his statement was recorded separately FIR no. 227/13 State Vs. Dalip PS Amar Colony 2 of 6 wherein he has denied all incriminating evidence against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated. Accused did not lead any DE in defence.
5. Final arguments were heard on behalf of State as well as defence.
6. The main arguments of Prosecution are: (1) Sufficient material is available on record to prove the guilt of accused. (2) Contradictions appearing in the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses are minor in nature and don't go to the root of case. (3) Generally Public Persons do not come forward to join in a police case.
7. The main arguments of Defence are: (1) The testimonies of Prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions and raising doubts over the truthfulness of Prosecution story. (2)Nonjoining of independent witnesses despite their availability also makes the case of Prosecution doubtful. (3) Sketch and seizure memo prepared before sending rukka, however the said documents bear the FIR number, which creates doubt over the prosecution case.
8. I have considered the arguments of both side and also gone through the entire record including the testimonies of witnesses.
FIR no. 227/13 State Vs. Dalip PS Amar Colony 3 of 6
9. After appreciation of the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the material placed on record by the prosecution, the Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt in view of following reasons:
10. No independent/public witness had joined the investigation to witness the recovery, search or other proceedings despite their availability as stated by the witnesses. PW1 Ct. Mahender has deposed that public person are generally present in the park. HC Jai Prakash/PW2 has deposed that after apprehending the accused, he did not come on road to request public persons to join the proceedings.
11. The failure on the part of the prosecution to join public witnesses especially when they are available also cast a doubt on the prosecution story. No plausible explanation has come on behalf of the prosecution for non joining of independent witnesses. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as PREM SINGH VS. STATE, 1996 Crl. L.J. 3604, PAWAN KUMAR VS. DELHI ADMN 1989 Crl. L.J. 127 (Delhi HC), NANAK CHAND VS. STATE OF DELHI, 1992 Crl. LJ 55 (Delhi HC).
FIR no. 227/13 State Vs. Dalip PS Amar Colony 4 of 6
12. Perusal of record reveals that the sketch memo and recovery/seizure memo bears the FIR number although this document was prepared prior to registration of FIR. It has not been explained as to how and under what circumstances, FIR number appeared on the sketch memo and recovery memo. This also creates a suspicion regarding the recovery of the alleged knife.
13. Identity of the buttondar knife is in doubt. The knife allegedly recovered from the possession of accused was neither sent for chemical analysis nor fingerprints were lifted for the purpose of comparison by the expert.
14. No efforts were made to handover the seal to independent public persons after use and seals remained with the junior police official only. Since the handing over of the seal to public witness has not been proved and hence it cannot be ruled out that police had the opportunity to tamper with the case property as the seals were in their possession. This also creates a doubt upon the prosecution story. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as "Prem Singh Vs. State" reported as 1996 CRI. L. J/ 3604 in this respect.
15. In view of foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view FIR no. 227/13 State Vs. Dalip PS Amar Colony 5 of 6 that prosecution has failed to bring such material on record which would have gone to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt holding him guilty for the offence under section 25 Arms Act. Hence, accused is acquitted of the charges for offence under section 25 Arms Act.
Pronounced in the open Court (Neha)
today on 28th November 2013 MM10 (South East)
Saket, New Delhi
FIR no. 227/13 State Vs. Dalip
PS Amar Colony 6 of 6