Delhi District Court
State vs Jitesh@Babu on 28 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. HIMANSHU TANWAR: MM10:
SOUTHEAST DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No.79/2023
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Pul Prahlad Pur
State vs. Jitesh @ Babu
Date of Institution of case 25.02.2023
Judgment Reserved on 23.03.2024
Date of Judgment 28.03.2024
The institution Sr. No. of the case 2058/2023
The date of commission of 07.02.2023
offence
Details of complainant HC Rajesh Kumar,
No.1682/SE, PIS
No.28040163, PS Pul
Prahlad Pur
Details of accused person Jitesh @ Babu, son of Sh.
Rajesh Lal, H.No.A317/2,
V.P. Singh Camp, Pul
Prahlad Pur, New Delhi
The offence complained of 25/54/59 Arms Act
The plea of accused person Pleaded not guilty
The final order Acquitted
The date of such order 28.03.2024
State vs. Jitesh Babu FIR No.79/2023 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.1 of 8
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2024.03.28
12:25:11 +0530
By this judgment the court shall dispose of the case u/s 25/54/59 Arms
Act.
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1) The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 07.02.2023 at
about 10:22 PM near ICD Parking, near Railway Colony Cut, CP Singh
Camp, New Delhi within jurisdiction of PS PPP, accused was found in
possession of a buttondar knife as per seizure memo without any permit
or license in contravention of notification issued by Delhi
Administration and thereby he committed an offence punishable u/s
25/54/59
2) After the accused was produced from JC in the Court, copy of chargesheet and other documents were supplied to him. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
3) (i) In the prosecution evidence PW1 HC Rajesh in his examination in chief deposed that on 07.02.2023, he was posted as HC at PS PPP. On that day, he along with Ct. Kanak was on area patrolling duty. On that day, at about 10:20 PM, when they reached near Transport Building, ICD, Pul Prahlad Pur, New Delhi, an unknown person on the motorcycle came to them and informed that some persons had caught hold a person and were beating him near Railway Colony Cut, ICD Park.
State vs. Jitesh Babu FIR No.79/2023 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.2 of 8 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU TANWAR HIMANSHU Date: TANWAR 2024.03.28 12:25:15 +0530
Thereafter, they went there and saw that there gathered a crowd and some people in the crowd handed over the custody of one unknown person to them. They recovered a buttondar knife from his possession which he was carrying due to which he got injury in his hand. The name of the accused was revealed as Jitesh@ Babu. Thereafter, he informed the said fact to the PS and IO HC Suresh came to the spot. He handed over the custody of the accused and recovered knife to the IO. IO asked 45 public persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed. Thereafter, he opened the buttondar knife and prepared the sketch memo (total length of knife 30.5 cms, length of handle 16 cms, length of blade 14.5 cms, width of blade 2.5 cms), Ex.PW1/A and the same was seized and sealed with the seal of 'SK' vide seizure memo, Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement, Ex.PW1/C and prepared the rukka. IO handed over the rukka to Ct. Kanak for the registration of FIR, accordingly Ct, Kanak went to the PS to register the FIR and got the FIR registered. Ct. Kanak came back to the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and rukka to the IO. Thereafter, IO written the FIR Number on the seizure memo and sketch memo. IO asked public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan, Ex.PW1/D. Therefore, IO interrogated the accused and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused, Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, IO arrested and conducted personal search of the accused vide memos, PW1/F and PW1/G. Thereafter, they went to the police station and deposited the State vs. Jitesh Babu FIR No.79/2023 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.3 of 8 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.03.28 12:25:22 +0530 case property in the Malkhanna. IO recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Accused and the case property was correctly identified by the witness.
Witness was duly crossexamined by Sh. Onkar Panday, Ld. Counsel for accused.
4) PW2 HC Suresh Kumar, in his examination in chief, deposed that on 07.02.2023, he was posted as HC at PS PPP. On that day, he received the information vide DD No.86A regarding recovery of buttondar knife after which he reached the spot i.e. ICD Parking near Railway Colony Cut near VP Singh Camp, New Delhi, where he met HC Rajesh and Ct. Kanak, who handed over him the custody of recovered buttondar knife and the accused. He asked 45 public persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed. Thereafter, he opened the buttondar knife and prepared the sketch memo (total length of knife 30.5 cms, length of handle 16 cms, length of blade 14.5 cms, width of blade 2.5 cms), Ex.PW1/A and the same was seized and sealed with the seal of 'SK' vide seizure memo, Ex.PW1/B. He had also prepared the seal handing over memo, Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, he recorded statement of HC Rajesh Kumar, Ex.PW1/C and prepared the rukka, Ex.PW2/B. He handed over the rukka to Ct. Kanak for the registration of FIR, accordingly Ct. Kanak went to the PS to register the FIR and got the FIR registered. Ct. Kanak State vs. Jitesh Babu FIR No.79/2023 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.4 of 8 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date:
2024.03.28 12:25:26 +0530 came back to the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and rukka to him. Thereafter, he written the FIR Number on the seizure memo and sketch memo. He asked public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan, Ex.PW1/D. Therefore, he interrogated the accused and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused, Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, he arrested and conducted personal search of the accused vide memos, Ex.PW1/F and PW1/G. Thereafter, they went to the police station and deposited the case property in the Malkhanna. He recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Accused and case property through sample was correctly identified by the witness.
Witness was duly crossexamined by Sh. Onkar Panday, Ld. Counsel for accused.
5) Accused in his statement u/s 294 CrPC, stated no objection if the authors/signatories of following documents are exempted form formal examination and the said documents are read in evidence: a. Copy of FIR (without contents) registered in the present case Ex. A1.
b. Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.A2.
c. DD No.73A dated 07.02.2023, Ex.A3.
d. DD No.86A dated 07.02.2023, Ex.A4.
e. DAD notification dated 29.10.1980, Ex.A5.
State vs. Jitesh Babu FIR No.79/2023 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.5 of 8
Digitally signed by
HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR
TANWAR Date: 2024.03.28
12:25:30 +0530
f. MLC of accused dated 08.02.2023, Ex.A6..
6) Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was listed
for recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused had stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials and he is innocent and stated that he does not want to lead evidence in his defence. DE was therefore closed.
7) I have heard the submissions addressed by Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. APP for state and Sh. Onkar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
8) Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. On the other hand, Ld. APP has submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to convicted.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
9) Be that as may, it is well settled that the burden of proof to prove all the ingredients of the alleged offence lies on the prosecution and the prosecution has to discharge the said burden beyond reasonable doubt, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. However, in the present State vs. Jitesh Babu FIR No.79/2023 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.6 of 8 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date:
2024.03.28 12:25:34 +0530 matter, the case of the prosecution is marred with several serious lapses. It is a matter of record that only police witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in the present matter. No public witness has been examined by the prosecution in the present matter and further no efforts were made by the IO to make public persons join the investigation, even though the place of occurrence was a public place and the fact that there were public persons at around the spot is even admitted by the prosecution's witnesses. Even otherwise, the police officials have not proved their presence at the spot, as all the departure or arrival entries have not been placed on record in the present matter.
10) Abovementioned observation assumes significance on account of grave contradictions which are to be seen in the testimonies of prosecution's witnesses. PWs had deposed that seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and seal handing over memo Ex.PW2/A were prepared prior to the registration of FIR but the said documents have the mentioning of FIR No.79/2023 but no endorsement has been made as at what time the said FIR number has been inserted on the said documents. Further, PWs have denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting in the PS but the seal handing over memo placed on record is a printed copy, so how come a printed seal handing over memo was prepared at the spot without a printer.
11) In view of the aforesaid facts, contradictions and observations, the State vs. Jitesh Babu FIR No.79/2023 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.7 of 8 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.03.28 12:25:38 +0530
alleged recovery and the presence of the police officials at the spot itself becomes doubtful and it casts a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution. Thus, the possibility of the case property being planted on the accused cannot be ruled out. Consequently, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused.
12) The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused Jitesh @ Babu s/o Sh.
Rajesh Lal is hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT Digitally signed
HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU
On 28.03.2024
TANWAR
TANWAR Date: 2024.03.28
12:25:41 +0530
(HIMANSHU TANWAR)
MM10, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT
SAKET: NEW DELHI
State vs. Jitesh Babu FIR No.79/2023 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.8 of 8