Delhi District Court
State vs . Jitender @ Jeetu on 25 July, 2011
State Vs. Jitender @ Jeetu
FIR No. 189/05
PS Adarsh Nagar
IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ GAUR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATEIV ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Brief reasons for the judgment in the case with following particulars:
State V/S Jitender @ Jeetu
FIR NO. 189/05
PS Adarsh Nagar
U/S 25/54/59 of Arms Act
C/N No. 133/05
Unique ID No. 02401R0486352005
Date of Institution: 26.05.2005
Date of commission of offence 28.04.2005
Name of the Complainant HC Harjeet Singh
Name and address of accused Jitender @ Jeetu s/o Hakim
Singh, R/o CBlock, Gali No.
43, Indraprasth Colony, Burari,
Delhi.
Offence complained of U/S 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
Plea of accused pleaded not guilty
Final Order Acquitted
Date of reserve for orders 25.07.2011
Date for announcing the orders 25.07.2011
C No. 133/05
Unique ID No. 02401R0486352005 Page No. 1
State Vs. Jitender @ Jeetu
FIR No. 189/05
PS Adarsh Nagar
Brief Facts and pretrial procedure:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.04.2005 HC Harjeet and Ct. Rajesh Kumar were on patrolling duty. At about 10.10 am, during patrolling duty when they reached at road No. 51, near NDPL Office they saw the accused standing near public urinal who on seeing them started to run away. HC Harjeet and Ct. Rajesh Kumar chased him and apprehended him in front of Ambar Tower, Azadpur Commercial Complex whose name came to know as Jitender @ Jeetu. On his search one buttondar knife was recovered from his possession without any permit or license. Knife was measured and seized. Rukka was prepared and FIR was got registered. Further investigation was handed over to HC Mahender Singh who arrested the accused, filed the challan and accused was sent up for trial.
2. On the basis of these allegations, charge U/S 25/54/59 of Arms C No. 133/05 Unique ID No. 02401R0486352005 Page No. 2 State Vs. Jitender @ Jeetu FIR No. 189/05 PS Adarsh Nagar Act was framed against the accused on 09.06.2005. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Trial
3. To prove the charges, prosecution examined four witnesses in total whose testimonies are touched upon in brief as under:
(i) PW1 Ct. Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 28.04.2005 he was on patrolling duty along with HC Harjeet Singh and during patrolling at about 1.10 am when they reached at road No. 51, near NDPL Office they saw the accused standing near public urinal which was situated there .
Accused on seeing them started to run away. On suspicion, HC Harjeet apprehended him. On his casual search one buttondar knife was recovered from his right side pocket of his wearing pant. Sketch of the knife was prepared Ex.PW1/A by the HC Harjeet/First IO and same was measured . Seal was given to PW1 after its use. Pullanda was seized C No. 133/05 Unique ID No. 02401R0486352005 Page No. 3 State Vs. Jitender @ Jeetu FIR No. 189/05 PS Adarsh Nagar vide memo Ex.PW1/B. Rukka was prepared by first IO and handed over to PW1 who got the case registered. After having got the case registered, PW1 returned to the spot along with HC Mahender / second IO who was marked further investigation of the case. First IO handed over the custody of the accused, relevant documents and case property to the second IO who prepared site plan at the instance of first IO. First IO was relieved. Second IO arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW1/C & PW1/D respectively. He identified the knife as Ex.P1.
(ii) PW2 HC Harjeet Singh was the first IO in the present case who deposed on the same lines of PW1.
(iii) PW3 ASI Radha Rani was the Duty officer in the present case who proved registration of FIR as Ex.PW3/A and her endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW3/B. C No. 133/05 Unique ID No. 02401R0486352005 Page No. 4 State Vs. Jitender @ Jeetu FIR No. 189/05 PS Adarsh Nagar
(iv) PW4 HC Mahender Singh was the second IO in the present case who deposed that on 28.04.2005 Ct. Rajesh handed over him a rukka and the copy of FIR of the present case for further investigation. Thereafter he along with him went to the spot i.e. Azadpur Complex. There HC Harjeet handed over him the custody of accused, case property and relevant documents. He prepared a site plan Ex.PW4/A at the instance of HC Harjeet whose supplementary statement was recorded by him and thereafter HC Harjeet was relieved. The accused was interrogated and thereafter, the accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW1/C & PW1/D respectively. The accused was got medically examined and the case property was deposited in Malkhana at PS. The chargesheet was prepared under the supervision of SHO.
Prosecution evidence was closed on 11.03.2011. C No. 133/05 Unique ID No. 02401R0486352005 Page No. 5
State Vs. Jitender @ Jeetu FIR No. 189/05 PS Adarsh Nagar Statement of accused and defence
4. After closure of prosecution evidence , the statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC was recorded. He stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated by planting case property upon him. No evidence in defence was led.
Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions:
5. Having touched upon the statements of PWs, I shall consider the rival contention of parties. Accused has highlighted several infirmities in investigation which are being discussed hereunder alongwith the explanations therefore advanced by Ld. APP for the State.
6. It is firstly highlighted by accused that the IO has not joined any independent public witness despite availability. Admittedly, several public witnesses were present at the time of apprehension of accused and while completing the formalities at the spot but none of the public witnesses was C No. 133/05 Unique ID No. 02401R0486352005 Page No. 6 State Vs. Jitender @ Jeetu FIR No. 189/05 PS Adarsh Nagar even requested to become witness. This casts doubt about sincere efforts made by the IO to join independent witnesses. In Roop Chand v/s State of Haryana reported in 1990 (1) CLR 69, it was observed that such explanations that the public persons refused to join the proceedings are unreliable and in Pradeep Narayan V/S State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1995 S.C. 1930 held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation benefit of which has to go to the accused.
7. It is settled proposition of law that Sub Section 4 of Section 100 CrPC is directory provision, however, explanation of non joining of independent witness should be plausible. The explanation put forward by the prosecution for non joining of independent witness appears to be implausible for reason that there was ample time with the IO at least to note down the particulars of the persons who refused to join the investigation. C No. 133/05 Unique ID No. 02401R0486352005 Page No. 7
State Vs. Jitender @ Jeetu FIR No. 189/05 PS Adarsh Nagar The same creates doubt regarding the fairness of the investigation.
8. It is also noteworthy that the most crucial part of the investigation has been conducted by the complainant HC Harjeet even before registration of FIR. Since, he was present at the spot alongwith other police officials, no explanation has been put forth by the prosecution as to why despite availability, the investigation was not handed over to some other senior officer. In such case, as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Megha Singh V/S State of Haryana reported in 1995 Crl. L. J. 3988 and as held in the case titled as Sunil V/S State reported in 1999 (1) JCC 85 (Delhi) benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused.
9. It is also highlighted by accused that on the recovery Memo,the FIR number finds mention and it has not been explained by the prosecution. Admittedly, these documents were prepared before registration of FIR. When documents are prepared before registration of FIR and it contains the C No. 133/05 Unique ID No. 02401R0486352005 Page No. 8 State Vs. Jitender @ Jeetu FIR No. 189/05 PS Adarsh Nagar FIR number, then interference has to be drawn that either FIR was recoded prior in time or the documents were prepared later on and in such cases, benefit of doubt is to be given the the accused.
10. It is next pointed out by accused that the seal was kept by the police officials themselves and was not handed over to any independent person and prosecution has also failed to prove that the case property remained intact and was not tampered with till the time it was produced in the Court which was more important when the seal remained with the police official of the same police station.
11. All the lapses in investigation, discussed herein above creates a doubt on the very recovery of one buttondar knife from the possession of accused. The lapses are material one and cannot be ignored. It is settled proposition of law that if the investigation suffers from taint then the entire prosecution case becomes open to serious doubts and challenges. The C No. 133/05 Unique ID No. 02401R0486352005 Page No. 9 State Vs. Jitender @ Jeetu FIR No. 189/05 PS Adarsh Nagar material is insufficient to record a finding of guilt of the accused and the safer course available is to acquit the accused giving him a benefit of doubt.
Conclusion
12. In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I acquit the accused Jitender @ Jeetu for the offence U/S 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
13. The Bail Bond stands cancelled and surety for the accused stands discharged. Any endorsement placed on the documents of the surety may accordingly, be cancelled. The original documents of the surety, if retained on record be returned against acknowledgment. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Neeraj Gaur)
today i.e. 25.07.2011 Metropolitan MagistrateIV
Rohini Courts, Delhi
C No. 133/05
Unique ID No. 02401R0486352005 Page No. 10