Delhi District Court
State vs . Manoj Kumar on 28 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SOUTH EAST-03, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Manoj Kumar
FIR NO: 76/08
P. S. Kalkaji
ID no. 02403R0176952008
Date of institution of case : 23.02.2008
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 28.07.2012
Date of judgment : 28.07.2012
Advocates appearing in the case :
Sh. Manish Kumar, Ld. APP for State
Sh. Vinay Kumar Verma, Legal Aid Counsel for accused
JUDGEMENT U/s 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Date of offence : 11.02.2008
b) Offence complained of : U/s 25 Arms Act
c) Name of complainant : Ct. Naresh Kumar
d) Name of accused, his parentage, : Manoj Kumar
local & permanent residence S/o Sh. Nachi Matu
R/o 512/1 Chander Ka Makan
near Sai Baba Mandir
Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi
e) Plea of accused : He is falsely implicated.
f) Final order : He is acquitted
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. In the present case, accused Manoj Kumar has been charged for offence u/s 25 Arms for recovery of buttondar knife without any licence at public place in contravention of Delhi Administration Notification, on 11.02.2008 at about 8:10 pm at Deshbandhu College Bus stand, Kalkaji, within jurisdiction of PS Kalkaji. Prosecution has examined two witnesses on its behalf. FIR No. 76/08 PS Kalkaji State vs. Manoj Kumar Page 1 of 4
2. PW1 is Ct. Rakesh Kumar who stated that on 11.02.2008, he was on patrolling duty at Deshbandhu College Bus Stop, and at about 8 pm, when he reached at Deshbandhu college bus stop, he saw one person and on suspicion apprehended and on his cursory search, one buttondar knife was recovered, therefore, information was sent to PS and IO HC Shyam Lal came at the spot and conducted further investigation. PW1 exhibited sketch of knife as Ex.PW1/A and seizure memo of knife as Ex.PW1/B, his statement recorded by IO as Ex.PW1/C and arrest memo and personal search memo of accused as Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E.
3. PW2 is IO HC Shyam Lal on information from PS Kalkaji reached at the spot and met with Ct. Rakesh and there he was handed him over the accused Manoj Kumar with one buttondar knife and recorded statement of Ct. Rakesh Kumar which is Ex.PW1/C and sent him for registration of FIR. PW2 exhibited rukka as Ex.PW2/A. Ld. APP asked leading question on preparation of site plan from PW2 and he admitted that he prepared site plan at the instance of Ct. Rakesh and exhibited it as Ex.PW2/B. Both the witnesses correctly identified the accused and case property in court.
4. After closure of PE, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused did not lead any defence evidence, hence final arguments were heard today and case was kept for order for today itself. BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF.
After hearing final arguments and after perusal of case file, this FIR No. 76/08 PS Kalkaji State vs. Manoj Kumar Page 2 of 4 court is of the opinion that though the prosecution has tried to prove the case by bringing technically all the evidence on record, however, all the PWs have failed to give satisfactory reply why public persons were not made witness to the recovery of the weapon though the purported time of arrest of accused was about 8:10 pm and there were many public persons going to and fro near at Deshbandhu College Bus Stand, Kalkaji. They did not serve any notice to public persons to become party to the recovery. All this leads to reasonable doubt that recovery may not have been made at the spot as stated in prosecution case or recovery may not have been made from accused at all.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in case of Azim Khan Vs. State 1996 Crl.C.J. 3140 that recovery of case property at a crowded place like bus stand without making public persons as witnesses to recovery raises serious doubt on the very fact of recovery, hence in this case, the accused was acquitted on this ground of failure of police officials to make public persons as necessary witnesses to the recovery. In a similar case of recovery of opium from accused at a bus stand where no public witnesses were joined in the recovery, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled Darshan Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1997 (3)RCR (Crm) 496 set aside the conviction of accused.
Secondly, though the alleged knife seized from accused was sealed in a pullanda but it was never sent to FSL for expert opinion regarding finger prints on the knife, hence in the absence of FSL report, it can not be said that the recovery of knife was made from accused only. The prosecution has to prove each and every case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant conviction of FIR No. 76/08 PS Kalkaji State vs. Manoj Kumar Page 3 of 4 accused, but in this case, the very fact of arrest of accused and the fact of seizure of knife from him is shrouded in mystery which has been further aggravated by the omission of IO to send the knife to FSL for report. The omission to make public persons as witness of recovery further creates a reasonable suspicion upon the working of the police officials, whether the knife was recovered from accused at the said place at all or not. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and has failed to plug all the gaps in the story of prosecution and has left many doubts regarding recovery of knife from the possession of accused. Hence, the benefit of doubt in this case is granted to accused. Accused stands acquitted from charge u/s 25 Arms Act on benefit of doubt. Personal bond and surety bond of accused stands discharged. Original documents if any be released to the authorised persons on proper receipt and endorsement if any be cancelled. Case property be destroyed and report be filed. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH )
TODAY ON 28th JULY, 2012 MM-03(SE), NEW DELHI
FIR No. 76/08 PS Kalkaji
State vs. Manoj Kumar Page 4 of 4