Delhi District Court
State vs . : Surjeet Sigh @ Bounty on 3 November, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT KUMAR: MM ROHINI:
COURTS: DELHI.
State Vs. : Surjeet Sigh @ Bounty
FIR NO : 51/90
U/s : 25 of Arms Act
PS : Adarsh Agar
JUDGMENT.
1. Isl. no. of the case 53/90
2. Offense complained of
or proved U/s 25 Arms Act
3. Date of Offense 06.03.90
4. Name of the complainant SI Narain Sigh
5. Name of the accused Surjeet Sigh @ Bounty
s/o:Tarantej Sigh R/O H. NO.
4600, Gal Pathar Wail, Roshanara
Road, Delhi
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
7. Final order Acquitted
8. Date of Order 03.11.07
Brief reasons for decision:
2
The story of the prosecution in brief is as under :
that on 06.03.90 at about 5.15 pm at Shop No. 18, Transport Center, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, accused Surjeet Sigh was found in possession of four live cartridges of 32 bore without any permit or license. Thus FIR U/sec. 25 of Arms Act was registered against him. IO conducted the detailed investigation and filed his final report u/sec. 173 Cr.P.C. Copies of documents were supplied to the accused and arguments on charge was heard. Charge u/s 25 of Arms Act was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial at that stage .
2. In order to establish the liability of the accused seven witnesses examined by the prosecution and there is no evidence from the side of accused in his defense.
3. PW1 Cost. Faker Alarm has stated to the effect that on 06.03.90 he was posted in PS Adarsh Agar. On that day the duty officer gave him the copy of DD No. 12 A and he went to Shop No. 18, Transport Center, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, where SI Narain Sigh and cost. Narender found present. The copy was given to SI Narain Sigh. A Scooter bearing No. DNP 3365 was parked near shop no. 18 and PW1 was asked to take care of that scooter. Three/four persons were asked to join the proceedings but they refused. Accused Surjeet Sigh was present on the spot, he was the owner. He was asked to 3 open the dickey of the scooter and after opening the same four cartridges were recovered. Sketch of the cartridges were prepared which is Ex. PW1. They were sealed with the seal of HHK. The sealed parcel was taken into possession. Thereafter IO prepared ruka and handed over the same to cost Fakru Alarm. FIR was registered. The accused was arrest and his personal search was conducted. The case property was deposited in Malkhana. Nothing contrary has emerged from the cross examination of this witness.
4. PW-2 cost. Ram Saran has stated that on 21.03.90 he was posted at PS Adarsh Agar and took one sealed parcel from MHC(m) and took the same to Old Police Lines in the office of the FSL video road certificate no. 87/21. The sealed parcel remained intact in his custody. This witness was not cross examined by the accused.
4. PW2 is the Duty officer who registered the FIR and handed over the same to constable Mahavir Sigh along with the original pukka.
5. PW cost. Jag dish Sander has stated that on 26.3.90 on sealed parcel sealed with the seal of HHK was received to Balletic Unit B & L, Rajpur Road. On opening the parcel it was found containing 4 cartridges of 32 inch bore. Upon their examination the cartridges were alive, he prepared report Ex. PW4/A. After examination, the cartridges were sealed with the seal of Balletic Unit B & L Delhi.
6. PW5 ASI Prakash Sand is the duty officer who upon 4 receiving one pukka through cont. Faker Alarm registered the FIR Ex. PW5/A.
7. PW6 (Red.) SI Narain Sigh has stated that on 06.03.90 he was posted at PS Adarsh Agar. On that day upon receiving one DD NO. 10A, he along with cost. Nae Sigh reached at shop no. 18 Transport Center where he found one scooter No. DNF-3365 in a street behind shop no. 1. Cost. Nae Sigh was left near the scooter and the scooter owner was searched. PW6 reached at the basement and it was found that the owner of the scooter had gone to Mandi. Another DD No. 12 A was received through cost. Faker Alarm. Thereafter, the Nakabandi at transport Center at about 5.15 pm made and accused Surjeet Sigh came to the basement. He was inquired and he was requested to open the dickey of the scooter. After the dickey of the scooter was opened, four live cartridges were recovered on which KF 32 SNW was written. Sketch was prepared. They were kept in a sealed pulanda and the same was sealed with the seal of HHK. The case property was taken into possession. Scooter was already taken into possession. Pukka was prepared. FIR was registered. Site plan was prepared Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. The case property was also referred to FSL for collecting the Balletic report. Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act was also obtained and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed thereafter. 5
8. PW 7 Inspector Girlish Kumar has stated that on 05.05.90, he was posted as SI and was on duty of S.O to DCP/NW with Sh. K. K Maheshwari. Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act for the prostitution of accused Surjeet Sigh was granted by DCP Sh. K K Maheshwari. The sanction is Ex. PW7/A bearing the signatures of DCP K K Maheshwari. Nothing contrary has emerged from the cross examination of this witness.
9. After examination of 7 W's, PE was closed and statement of accused us 313 Cr.P.C recorded. During his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C accused has pleaded his innocence however he stated that he do not want to lead evidence in his defense.
10. I have heard Old APP for state and old counsel for the accused and have carefully perused the entire record and relevant provisions of law.
11. On careful perusal and analysis of entire evidence on record, I find that no corroborated, consistent, rival and sufficient evidence to make up the edifice of the prosecution case, has been produced by the prosecution. Moreover, the testimonies of W's do not inspire confidence. The prosecution has produced and examined only 7 witnesses out of the list of 8 witnesses. No plausible explanation has been placed by the prosecution for such non-production and non examination of the remaining witnesses. One of the material witness, though technical in nature, the DCP concerned who gave the sanction 6 u/s 39 Arms Act has not been examined, in his place his S.O was examined. It was not explained that whether the concerned DCP was available or not. As per the Indian Evidence Act, the evidence of any other person can be led in the absence of the maker himself when the witness/maker is not available and cannot be find out or has expired. No such situation was explained before the examination of S.O on behalf of DCP concerned. In these circumstance, non-examination of the DCP concerned is a serious omission.
12. The accused has no way to prove his innocence or to show that a false case has been planted upon him except by pointing out the vital discrepancies in the police evidence. Hon'ble Justice Sh. P. K Bahari in case of "Mod. Shamim Vs State" 1991 Drugs Cases at page 82 has observed that the material aspect of the case are how the secret information was received and the raiding party was formed and the efforts were made to join the public witnesses and in what manner the proceedings were carried at the spot.
13. During investigation of the case, no public witness were joined nor there are any senior efforts made in this regard when it was possibly to do so which makes the case of the prosecution week and suspicious. It is also reflected from the perusal of the record that the site plan is not a scaled one and has been roughly prepared. In these circumstances, the site plan cannot be considered to be proved which 7 again raises an adverse presumption against the prosecution u/s 114 (g) of Evidence Act.
14. With regard to the non inclusion of any public/eye witness in the list of witness, IO has failed to give any reasonable explanation as to what efforts were made in this regard despite his statement during his cross examination that various public persons were present on the spot, no notice was given to any of the by-standards. Thus no sincere efforts seems to be made on record for inclusion of any public witness/eye witness on record who could independently certify and corroborate the testimonies of the public witnesses supporting the story of the prosecution.
15. The sanction as u/s 39 Arms Act also remained to be unproved as the concerned witness has not been brought in the witness box though he was available at that time.
16. It is true, evidence is to be weighed and not counted but in this case whatever evidence has been produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to fortify the edifice of the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to prove all the links. In case where the prosecution has failed to prove all the links, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. In these circumstance, I am fortified with the observation made in the case "State of Rajasthan Vs. Daulat Ram 1980 CAR 169 (Supreme Court) wherein it was held that the prosecution has 8 failed to prove all the links and accused was acquitted.
17. In view of the above findings I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Surjeet @ Bounty. Thus he is given the benefit of doubt and is acquitted of the offense punishable u/s 25 Arms Act. His bail bonds are canceled. Surety, if any for accused, stands discharged. Documents, if any, be returned, endorsement, if any be canceled. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of appeal or revision of any, File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court (PRASHANT KUMAR)
Dated 03.11.07 Metropolitan Magistrate
Delhi
9
FIR NO. 51/90
PS Adarsh Agar
03.11.07
Present: Old APP for the State.
Accused on bail.
Final arguments heard. Final judgment is pronounced
against the accused. Accused is acquitted of the charge u/s 25 Arms Act. Surety, if any for accused, stands discharged. Documents, if any, be returned, endorsement, if any be canceled. File be consigned to record room.
(Prashant Kumar) MM/Delhi/03.11.07