Delhi District Court
State vs . Ibrahim on 25 September, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI
STATE VS. IBRAHIM
FIR NO: 410/98
P.S. RMD
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Serial No. of the case : 45/03
b) Date of offence : 11.9.98
c) Offence complained of : 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
d) Name of complainant : HC Netrapal Singh
e) Name of accused, his : Ibrahim S/o Mohd. Yusuf
parentage & residence R/o H. No. 53, Mohalla,
Talibagan, P.S. Bazia Yakur,
Calcutta, West Bengal.
(Accused has been declared
Proclaimed Offender (PO),
in this case vide order dated
19.9.2002)
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted in absentia
h) Date of institution of case : 26.6.2003
i) Date on which case reserved : 25.9.2007
for judgment
j) Date of judgment : 25.9.2007
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1- Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused who has been declared Proclaimed Offender in this case vide order dated 19.9.2002 , had been facing trial on the allegation that on 11.9.98 at about 8.50 am at Contd..........
/2/ PF No. 7/9, near the Reservation Chart, RMD within the jurisdiction of PS RMD, was found in possession of one buttandar knife in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2- As stated above the accused has remained absented and has been declared PO in this case vide order dated 19.9.2002. After that case was adjourned for PE u/s 299 Cr.P.C and prosecution has examined only one witness Ct. Dayanand, who deposed about investigation done in this case and has proved/exhibited the document prepared during the investigation as he was patrolling alongwith the IO on the aforesaid , date , time and place of incident as well as deposed about apprehension of accused alongwith buttandar knife.
3- I have heard the submissions of APP for the State and carefully gone through the material produced on record. 4- The present case pertains to the year 1998 and the accused was declared PO in this case on 9.9.2002 . Thereafter the matter was adjourned for several time for prosecution evidence u/s 299 Cr.P.C but no PW has came forward to depose against the accused except PW1 Ct. Dayanand Contd..........
/3/ who had proved/exhibited the documents during the course of the investigation. There are 4 witnesses cited in the list of witnesses and the complainant in this case has not examined. Even then all the witnesses cited by the prosecution are the police officials, there is no independent witness cited in the list of witnesses nor during the course of the proceeding or at the time of recovery despite the place where the accused was apprehended was a platform, which is thoroughfare but none from the public persons was joined. As per the case of the prosecution public persons were gathered there but IO did not noted down the name and addresses of the persons who refused to join the investigation. Therefore it seems that the IO has made the gospel story against the accused with the ulterior motive. The statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 CrP.C has also recorded sterio type manner. Hence I do not found in justification to kept the case pending to record the testimony of the witnesses.
5- Further as per witnesses accused was apprehended at PF No. 7/9 at about 8.40 am ner the reservation chart which is a place where many public persons remain present for watching the status of their train and seats , but, IO has not made any effort to join any public witness which certainly hampered the case of the prosecution. To this effect I rely upon observations Contd..........
/4/ taken in various cases such as "The State of Punjab Vs. Gurmej Singh"
1991 (2), Criminal Report 361, "The State of Punjab Vs. Gurnam Singh"
1991 (3), Criminal Report 412 (C.C. Cases) [HC 345] wherein it was held that :-
"That failure of the Investigation Officer to join independent witnesses of the locality in investigation sound the death-knell of the prosecution case set up against the accused, conviction based by the learned trial court on the statements of the police and excise officials cannot be sustained in and the accused is entitled to secure an acquittal on this score."
6- MHC(M) has not been examined by the prosecution to prove the deposit of the buttondar knife in the Malkhana and that the same remained in sealed and intact position in his custody. I also rely upon the observations taken in the case titled as "Paramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab" High Court of Punjab & Haryana (1), RCR 268 wherein it was observed that :
"If no independent witness was joined - sample sealed at the spot - no evidence that sample sealed was deposited in Malkhana, accused acquitted given benefit of doubt"
Contd..........
/5/ 7- In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. Hence, accused is hereby Ibrahim S/o Mohd. Yusuf acquitted in absentia for the offence in question. Let file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 25.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI