Delhi District Court
State vs . Arun Kumar on 27 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA, MM-08 (SE)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
STATE VS. ARUN KUMAR
FIR NO. : 276/04
P.S. : LAJPAT NAGAR
U.S. : 25/54/59 ARMS ACT
Date of institution of case : 11.06.2004
Date on which case reserved : 27.01.2012
for judgment
Date of judgment : 27.01.2012
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Date of offence : 19.04.2004
b) Offence complained of : 25/54/59 Arms Act
c) Name of accused, his : Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Rattan Lal
parentage & residence R/o H.No. 324, K-Block, Sangam Vihar
New Delhi.
d) Plea of accused : Not Guilty
e) Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE:
1.In brief the case of prosecution is that on 19.04.2004 at about 9.50 PM, near LSR College, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Lajpat Nagar, accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife having blade of 14 CM and total length 31.3 cm without any valid license and in contravention of notification of Delhi administration and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act. Accused was arrested for being involved in a non-bailable offence. However, later on he was released on bail by the Cour order.
2. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the court of Ld. Predecessor and accused was summoned to face the trial for the offence allegedly committed State Vs. Arun Kumar FIR No. 276/04 PS L N 1/5 by him. Charge for the offence punishable U/s. 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused on 24.08.2008 to which he pleaded not guilty & claimed trial.
3. In order to substantial its version, prosecution examined three witnesses.
4. PW1 ASI Surender Kumar deposed that on 19.04.2004 he was working as duty officer at PS Lajpat Nagar having his duty hours from 4.00 PM to 12.00 midnight. He proved the carbon copy of FIR Ex. PW1/A (OSR) and his endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW1/B bearing his signatures at points A.
5. PW2 HC Satish Kumar deposed that on 19.04.2004, he was on patrolling duty and at about 9.50 pm, reached near LSR College, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. There he saw a person near Ganda Nala, who started running after seeing him in uniform. He asked him to stop, but he did not. It raised suspicion. He chased and managed to apprehend him. On being searched, a buttondar knife was recovered from right side pocket of his pants. On interrogation, the name of the accused was revealed as Arun. Thereafter, he informed about the incident to police post. IO HC Satvinder came at the spot and he handed over the accused along with the recovered knife to him. IO prepared the sketch of knife Ex. PW2/A, bearing his signature at point A. The length of blade and handle of knife was 14 CM and 17.3 CM respectively. IO prepared the pullanda of said knife and sealed it with the seal of of VPY. After using the seal it was handed over to him vide seizure memo Ex PW2/B bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded his statement vide Ex. PW2/C bearing his signatures at point A and put his endorsement vide Ex PW2/D and prepared the rukka and gave it to him and sent him to PS for registration of FIR. He got the FIR registered and came back at spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He also prepared the site plan Ex PW2/E bearing his signature at point A. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW2/F and his personal search was conducted vide Ex PW2/G bearing his signatures at point A. He also deposed that the accused was medically examined and sent to the lock up. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana. He also identified the accused as well as case property Ex P1.
State Vs. Arun Kumar FIR No. 276/04 PS L N 2/56. During cross examination, he deposed that the IO did not try to trace any public witness as it was a deserted place. He was shown the recovered buttondar knife, on one side of the knife Rampur and India were written and there was no specific mark apart from this on the knife. He admitted that if the same design of knife is kept together, he could not identify the same. He also admitted that the FIR No. was mentioned on recovery memo, rough sketch of recovered knife and site plan. He denied the suggestion that all the above stated documents were prepared at the PS and accused was falsely implicated by planting the knife.
7. PW3 ASI Satvinder Singh deposed on the same line as PW2. He also proved rough sketch of knife Ex. PW2/A, seizure memo Ex. PW2/B, statement of Ct. Satish Kumar Ex. PW2/C, Rukka Ex. PW2/D, arrest memo Ex. PW2/F, personal search memo Ex. PWS2/G and site plan Ex. PW2/E. He also identified the accused as well as case property Ex P1. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he admitted that the knife was not recovered in his presence from the possession of accused. He also admitted that they had not offered their personal search to the accused prior to conducting his personal search. He also admitted that he had not put any specific mark on the knife for identification purpose before sealing the same. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from him and knife was planted upon him.
8. Accused did not dispute the genuineness of DAD notification and entries made in register no. 19. Hence, examination of concerned clerk and MHC(M) PS-Lajpat Nagar were dispensed with. Thereafter, PE was closed as no other witness was left to be examined.
9. Accused was examined U/s. 313 r/w section 281 Cr.PC and all the incriminating circumstances appearing on record against him were put to which he denied as false and incorrect and stated that he was lifted from his residence while he was returning from his duty. However, he did not prefer to to lead evidence in his defence.
State Vs. Arun Kumar FIR No. 276/04 PS L N 3/510.The main arguments of Defence can be summarized as follow:
(1) Non Joinder of independent/public witnesses casts a serious doubt over the truthfulness of prosecution story (2) The identify of recovered knife is doubtful as there is no identification mark on the recovered knife. The recovered knife was planted on him.
11.The main argument of Ld. Public Prosecutor can be summarized as follows:
(1) Sufficient materials are available on record to prove the guilt of accused. (2) It is a matter of common understanding that people do not want to entangle themselves in police cases. In the present case, no independent witness could be made to join the investigation as the place of occurrence was a deserted place.
12.The court has heard the arguments of both sides and also perused the entire record including the testimonies of witnesses. After appreciation of testimonies of witnesses as well as the material placed on record, the court is of the view that the charge framed against accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt for the following reasons:
(1) All prosecution witnesses are police witnesses. Failure on the part of the prosecution to join public witnesses especially when they are available casts a doubt on the prosecution story. 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).
(2) No efforts were made to handover the seal to independent public persons after its use. The seal remained with the police officials only. The handing over of the seal to public witness has not been proved hence it cannot be ruled out that the opportunity to tamper with the case property was very much there as the seal remained within the possession of police officials.
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.
(3) There is nothing on record to show at what time the police personnel State Vs. Arun Kumar FIR No. 276/04 PS L N 4/5 proceeded for patrolling duty. Strangely none of the witness could tell as to what time they proceeded for such patrolling. No DD entries have been placed on record to establish the departure and arrival of the said police officials on patrolling. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as Pappu alias Irfan Vs State of UP,2005[1] JCC [Narcotics]31).
(4)It is also not on record to prove that the concerned IO had offered his personal search for effecting the search of the accused. The necessary inference can be easily drawn that the legal formality of search was not observed before recovery of the Knife from the accused.(Resham singh Vs state,1981 CRI.LJ 1691) (5) No explanation has come from the prosecution that as to how the rukka and seizure memo bear the FIR number. The number of FIR given on the top of the aforesaid documents clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. It seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution story. (Lalji Shukla Vs State,2000(2)JCC424(Delhi). (6)The defence counsel rightly argued that the identity of knife is doubtful. The buttondar knife allegedly recovered from the possession of accused was neither sent for chemical analysis nor fingerprints were lifted from the knife for the purpose of comparison by the expert. This makes the identity of knife doubtful (Bishnu Vs.State,1996 JCC 469).
13.In view of above discussions, court is of the view 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. As such accused is acquitted from the charge framed under section 25 Arms act.
14.File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
Announced & Dictated in (Mona Tardi Kerketta)
the Open Court on 27.01.2012 MM-08/South-East
Saket Courts complex,
New Delhi
State Vs. Arun Kumar FIR No. 276/04 PS L N 5/5