Delhi District Court
Cr No, 1415/2022 State vs . Pramod Kumar @ Rinku on 29 March, 2023
CR No, 1415/2022 State Vs. Pramod Kumar @ Rinku IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI PRESIDED BY: MS. CHHAYA TYAGI FIR No. : 109/2022 PS. ; Patparganj Industrial Area Uss. ; 25/54/59 Arms Act CR Na. : 1415/2022 STATE VS. PRAMOD KUMAR @ RINKU HC Jagsoran, No.1613/East PS Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi. vectacentnenereecss Complainant Pramod Kumar @ Rinku S/o Sh. Ulfat Singh R/o Village Nagla Khadgi, District Etah, U.P. esesennadeanecscasenns Accused JUDGMENT
Date of commission of offence : 17.01.2022 Plea of the accused ; Pleaded not guilty Date of Institution 08.03.2022 Judgment reserved on 29.03.2023 Judgment announced on 29.03.2023 Final order ; Acquitted CR No. 1415/2022 State Vs. Pramod Kumar @ Rinku BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
; » allegations that on
1. Prosecution case emanates from the allegations t 17.01.2022 at 08:30 am at Road Na. 56, Meerut Point, Delhi, accused Pramod Kumar @ Rinku was found having in his possession a button actuated knife in contravention of notification issued by the Delhi Administration. The instant FIR.
was registered for the offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act, 1959. 2, Upon completion of the investigation the instant charge- sheet for the offences punishable under section 25 Arms Act, 1959 was filed by the investigating officer against the accused. Consequently, the said accused was summoned by this Court. The compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. was made and thereafter the charge for the offence punishable under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, 1959 was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Issue: - Whether the accused was found in possession of a buttondar knife (illegal knife) without any permit/license?
3. To substantiate its case, prosecution has examined five witnesses in the case.
4. PW1 HC Jagsooran Singh has stated that on 17.01.2022 he was on patrolling duty from 09:00 am to 11:00 am along with Ct. Karnal and Ct. Rajnish vide DD entry No. 63. PW1 stated that he got information that a boy sedates people by giving them poisonous biscuits and also keeps illegal knife to commit offence. PW1 stated that he asked 4-5 public persons to join the raid but none agreed. PWI further stated that he along with Ct. Karnal, Ct. Rajnish and secret informer reached Meerut Point, Road No.56 where one boy wearing black jacket was found and was é Beseoen OA j. ares SES ASR. at 'aged a ?
A CR No. 1415/2022 State Vs. Pramod Kumar @ Rinku identified by secret informer as the one who sedates people by giving them poisonous biscuits. PW further stated that the said boy tried to flee when he saw us but we overpowered and apprehended him. PW1 stated that he had conducted cursory search of the boy and found one buttondar knife, a packet of biscuits in his jacket and one small jar containing some liquid substance. PW further stated that upon interrogation the boy disclosed his name as Pramod @ Rinku. PW1 prepared the sketch of the knife Ex.PWI/A, prepared pullanda of the knife and sealed it with the seal of 'MCT' and seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/B. PW1 kept the biscuit and jar containing liquid substance in transparent box and seized it vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D respectively. PW1 stated that he prepared tehrir Ex.PWI/E and sent Ct. Rajnish with tehrir to PS for registration of FIR. PWI stated after the registration of FIR, Ct. Rajnish and IO HC Sanjeev came to spot. PW1 further stated that he handed-over the custody of accused, case property and seizure memo to IO. PW1 further stated that at his instance, IO HC Sanjeev Kumar prepared the site plan Ex.PWI/F and thereafter PW1 left the spot. PW1 further stated that his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the 10 on the next day. PW1 had correctly identified the accused and case property in the court. PW1 deposed that PW1 got transparent box from shop keeper as shops were open.
5. PW2 ASI Sanjeev Kumar corroborated statement of PW] that DO had marked the present case and stated that DO had handedover copy of FIR and original tehrir to PW2. PW2 further stated that PW2 along with PW4 reached the spot where they met CR No. 1415/2022 State Vs. Pramod Kumar @ Rinku PW1 who briefed PW2 about the case and handedover a sealed pullanda one transparent jar/glass, one packet of biscuits and custody of accused. PW2 stated that the PW2 interrogated and personally searched the accused vide Personal Search Memo Ex.PW2/A, arrested the accused vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW2/B, prepared site plan Ex.PW1/F and recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW2/C. PW2 correctly identified the accused. PW2 stated that PW2 left the PS at about [1:45 pm.
6. PW3 HC Karnal Yadav stated that on 17-01-2022, PW3 was posted in PS PIA as Constable and was on patrolling duty along with PW1 and PW4. PW3 corroborated the version of PW1 that accused was wearing a black jacket and that buttondar knife was found from possession of accused. PW3 corroborated testimony of PW] that interrogation of accused and prepartion of sketch memo, seziure of knife, preparation of pullanda and sealing the same with the seal of 'MCT' were done by PW1. PW3 corroborated the version of PW1 that after sealing the case property, the seal was handedover by PWI to PW3, PW1 prepared tehrir which was handedover to PW4 and that after registration of FIR PW4 and PW2 came to the spot and PW] briefed and handedover case properties to PW2/O. PW3 further coroborated version of PW2 that PW2 prepared site plan, arrested accused, personally searched the accused, recorded disclosure statement of accused. PW3 correctly identified the accused and case property. PW3 again corroborated the version of PW1 that after sealing the case poperty, seal of MCT was handedover by PWI to PW3. PW3 stated that there were no passerby present at the spot. PW3 further stated that PW3 asked , CR No. 141572022 State Va. Pramod Kumar @ Rinku public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. PW3 further stated that PW3 left the spot at about 01:00 am. PW3 corroborated the version of PW2 that they do not know who accompanied the accused for medical examination and whether the medical examination was conducted or not.
7. PW Ct Rajneesh stated that on 17-01-2022 he was on patrolling duty along with HC Jagsooran and Ct. Karnal. PW4 corroborated the version of PW2 that one boy had given the information that a boy is sedating others with toxic substances to commit offence and upon reaching the spot the secret informer has hinted towards the alleged offender who was wearing black jacket. PW4 corroborated the version of PW3 that they started chasing the boy who started moving towards Seemapuri, the boy was overpowered and apprehended and HC Jagsooran conducted a cursory search and found one buttondar knife from his nght side pocket of his pant and one packet of biscuits and one container of some medicine substance from left side pocket of his jacket. PW4 stated that HC Jagsooran prepared a sketch of knife, seized the knife with white cloth and prepared a pullanda and sealed with the seal of MCT. PW4 further stated that HC Jagsooran seized the case property ie. buttondar knife, one packet of biscuit, some medicine vide separate Seizure Memos Ex.PWI/B, PWI/C & Ex.PW1/D respectively. PW4 corroborated the version of P'W2 that after using the seal, it was handedover to Ct. Karnal, PW1 prepared the tehrir and handedover to PW4 for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR PW4 and HC Sanjeev came to the spot. PW4 has correctly identified the accused and case property in the court.
CR No. 1415/2022 State Vs. Pramod Kumar @ Rinku
8. pws HC Chhuttan Lal (MHCM brought original register pw (t SR) No. 19 containing entry No. 42/2022 which ts Ext y was made regarding deposition of and stated that the said ent') ; ee DSA by PW on case property vide Serure Memo Ex.PWS/A by Pw L701. 2022.
; F : my " 1; {2 9 In view of statement us 904 CrP. dated | 04,2022, genuineses of FIR was admitted and DO/witness at S.No.3 was dropped from list of witnesses.
10. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under section 313 read with Section 281 CeP.C. was recorded on 24.03.2023 and the evidence surfaced acainst him and documents exhibited during the trial were put to aga = him. The accused denied their correctness and pleaded snnacence, The accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
11. Ld. APP for State has argued that the case is based on best possible evidence ie. direct evidence as accused was caught red handed with the knife and knife was seized.
12. Ld LAC has argued that:
i, {t is unlikely that PWI got transperant box keeping the biscuits allegedly seized from accused from nearby shop as it was late in the night.
ii. While PW2 stated that PW2 and PW4 went to the spot on bike, PW4 has stated that he returned to the spot on foot.
iii. PW2 admitted the suggestion that no light pole has been shown in the site plan and further denied the suggestion that there were no light pole available at the spot.
CR No. 4152022 State Vs, Pramod Kumar @ Rinku iv. While PWI stated that site plan was prepared by PW2 at the instance of PW1, site plan Ex.PWI/F does not bear signature of PW |, v. The fact that despite alleged recovery of supposedly poisonous substance from accused, no information was given to senior officers as has been admitted by PW1 in his cross-examination.
13. L have heard arguments on behalf of the State as well as arguments advanced by Ld. LAC for the accused and also perused the record.
OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
14. PWI1 deposed that he did not serve any notice to public persons and only gave secret information to staff members and not any senior officers. PW1 also deposed that PW1 did not offer his personal search to accused person. PW1 stated that he was not carrying his own seal which is why the pullanda containing biscuit was seized with the seal of 'MCT'. PWI has not explained how he came in possesion of seal of MCT. PWI further stated that after using the seal it was handedover to PW3 Ct. Karnal. PW1 has stated that he sent Ct. Rajneesh along with tehrir to PS, however, PW 1 haas also stated that after registration of FIR PW4 Ct. Rajneesh and PW2 Ct. Sanjeev "returned to the spot". It has not been explained how/why/when PW4 left the spot. PW admitted suggestion of Ld. Cousnel of accused that he was also MHCM at the time when the incident took place. It has not been explained how PW1 was performing patrolling duty and duty of MHCM at the same time. PW1 admitted suggestion of CR No. 1415/2022 State Vs. Pramod Kumar @ Rinky Ld. Counsel for accused that there is no DD entry wart, receipt of seal of MCT by PW1. While PWI stated that PW! had kept the biscuit and small jar of liquid substance in "a" transparent box and seized it vide Seizure Memo Ex.PWI/C and Ex.PWI/D, PW2 stated that packet of biscuit and one transparent glass/jar were separately handedover by PW1 to PW2. Further, it has not been explained by PW1 why two separate substances ~ packet of biscuit and small jar of liquid were kept in the same transparent box and how two different seizure memos were prepared for the same transparent box. However, the same is not directly relevant for the present case as the present case only pertains to alleged recovery of knife from the possession of accused. PW1 stated that distance between PS and Maharajpur border is 500 -- 600 meter. While PW1 stated that buttondar knife was found in jacket, PW3 stated that buttondarknife was found from right side pocket of pant of accused. While PW1 stated that small jar containing liquid substance was found without specifying from where the same was found, PW3 stated that biscuit packet and a container containing medicine were found from left side pocket of jacket of accused. While PW1 stated that PW2 returned to the spot at 11:30 pm, PW2 stated that PW2 and PW3 reached the spot at 12:00 am.
15. PW2 stated that he had not offered his personal search to accused before searching him. PW2 stated that he left the spot between 01:00 and 01:15 am along with PW4, PW3 and reached the PS on foot in 20 minutes. PW2 did not know who took accused for medical examination to the hospital.
CR No. 1415/2022 State Vs, Pramod Kumar @ Rinku
16. PW3 admitted suggestion of Ld. LAC for accused that no handing over memo watt seal was prepared by PW1. While PW3 stated that PW3 reached the spot i.e. Meerut Point at about 08:45 pm, PW4 stated that PW4 reached the spot at 07:35 pm and PW] stated that they reached the spot at 08:20 pm.
17. PW4 stated that IO had not offered his search to the accused before searching him and no handing over memo was prepared regarding handingover seal by IO to Ct. Karnal. While PW4 stated that PW4 returned to the spot on foot, PW2 stated that PW2 and PW4 returned to the spot on bike. While PW4 stated that the distance between PS and the spot was approximately 300 meters, PW3 stated that it was approximately 500 to 600 meters. While PW4 stated that IO prepared site plan, seizure memo and sketch memo, PW4 did not specify which IO he meant - 1" 1O / complainant or the [0 to whom the case was assigned after registration of FIR. PW2 and PW3 have stated that site plan was prepared by IO / PW2 and PW1 and PW3 have stated that sketch memo and seizure memo was prepared by PW1. PW4 has stated that he remained at the spot till 08:45 pm - 09:00 pm and reached the PS at 09:15 pm. However, PW4 is a witness to the arrest memo which is timed 12:30 am. This is also in contradiction with statement of PW3 that at 12:00 am, PW4 and PW2 returned to the spot on bike.
18 In the present case as per the version of the the prosecution, seizure memo of biscuit packet Ex.PWI/C, seizure memo of button actuated knife Ex.PW1/B and Sketch Memo of knife Ex.PWi/A were prepared before the preparation of the rukka. However, the said documents would show that it bear$ the No. 1415/2022 State Vs. Pramod Kumar @ Riaky CR No. é number of the FER. It shows @ serious infirmity in the case of the ofthe FIR was inserted later on prosecution as either the number of the FIR was 10 , ee me they have been or the dacuments were prepared before the tne they ha shown to be prepared. Be that as it may, the same creates a reasonable doubt in the story of prosecution. Reliance is placed upon "Girt Raj Vs. State 83 (2000) DLT 201, Mohd. Hashim, Appellant Vs. State, 2000 CRLL.J. 151 0, Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration, 1987 CCC 585 and Mewa Ram Vs. State 2000 CRLL.J. 114".
19. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that 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 shall be entered vide a separate entry and 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. In the present case, no departure or the arrival entry of the police officials namely PW1 HC Jagsooran, PW3 HC Kamal Yadav and PW4 Ct. Rajneesh who were allegedly on patrolling duty and the time of apprehension of the accused, has been proved on the record by the prosecution. Without proof of proper record of their duties/departure/arrival details, the presence of both the said witnesses at the spot on that day is doubtful. In absence of the departure and arrival entry of the said police officials, the argument of the Ld. LAC for accused that these police officials were not present at the spot and that the investigation allegedly done at the spot by these police officials was in fact done in the CR No. 1415/2022 State Vs. Pramod Kumar @ Rinku PS after accused was wrongfully apprehended from his house, cannot be ruled out. Reliance is placed upon the decision of "Rattan Lal Vs, State 1987 (2) Crimes 29".
20. The argument of the prosecution regarding non-availability of independent/public witnesses cannot be ruled out given the time of the incident. However, just because all the witnesses are police officials, their testimonies do not necessarily have to be discarded as not creditworthy. It is a settled principle of law that if the testimony of a police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the Court can act upon the same. In this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev v. State of Haryana., (2015) 17 SCC 554., wherein it is observed "Prudence however requires that the evidence of police officials who are interested in the outcome of the result of the case needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated...".
However, when the case involves the testimony of only the police officials and the accused pleads false implication, it would not appear justified if a finding of guilt is given merely on the version of the police when the necessary procedural formalities, such as recording of arrival and departure entry, have not been conducted by the police.
21. Moreover, in the absence of handing over memo of seal with which the case property was sealed and absence of any averment that the seal was in fact handed over to a public person as such the entire procedure of sealing of the case property and its production before the Court becomes suspicious. é 'f
----
CR No. 1415/2022 State Vs. Pramod Kumar @ Rioku
22. Furthermore, none of the prosecution witnesses stated that the police officials searching the accused gave or offered to give their personal search to the accused before searching his person. Infact, PW1 and PW2 specifically denied the suggestion in cross- examination by Ld. LAC.
23. It is pertinent to mention that prosecution has not proved that the knife in question was a button actuated knife - ie., 4 knife which operated with the aid of a mechanical device (button) as neither the sketch memo shows any button nor any of the witnesses have identified the button on the case property in their evidence during trial.
24. 10 has filed DAD notification dated 29.10.1980 prohibiting "manufacture, sale or possession for sale or test"
knives of particular description within which knife in the instant case falls. However, no evidence has been led by prosecution to show that knife in question was in fact "manufactured, sold or possessed for sale/test" by the accused. Relevant notification dated 17.02.1979 prohibiting mere acquisition, possession and carrying of knives of particular description was never placed on record/relied upon by the IO.
25. It is also apposite to underscore that relevant notification under Arms Rules, 2016 has not been placed on record by the Prosecution. The notification in fact placed on record pertains to Arms Rules 1962, which have already been superseded by Arms Rules, 2016 w.e.f, 15.07.2016.
26. Though the accused choose not to lead Defence Evidence, accused has sufficiently discharged that onus of proof upon him by highlighting improbabilities and serious countradictions in the Ce Br "& CR No. 1415/2022 State Vs. Pramod Kumar @ Rinku evidence led by the prosecution. The accused has created sufficient doubt in the mind of the court about correctness of the prosecution version and hte benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the accused.
27. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt qua the offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act, 1959. Hence, accused Pramod Kumar @ Rinku S/o Sh. Ulfat Singh stands acquitted of the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, 1959. Case property i.e. the knife be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in open court --
Today i.e. 29.03.2023 pole (Chhaya Tyagi) Metropolitan Magistrate -05 District East/Karkardooma Courts