Delhi District Court
State vs . Chote Lal Page No 1 Of 5 on 8 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR, LD MM12,
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE : Chote Lal
FIR No. : 244/08
P.S : Lodhi Colony
Date of commission of offence : 09.11.2008
Date of institution of challan : 22.12.2008
Name of complainant : HC Satyender Yadav
Name of accused : Chote Lal
S/o Lt. Sh. Raghuveer
Singh
R/o Ghanjaiya, PO
Meethi, PS Handiya, Distt.
Illahabad, UP.
Offence complained of : U/s 25 Arms Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not Guilty.
Arguments heard/ order reserved : 07.03.2013
Final order : Acquittal
Date of such order : 08.03.2013
FIR No. 244/08
State Vs. Chote Lal Page No 1 of 5
1.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 09.11.2008 at about 5:50 p.m. in front of the gate of Navyug School C3 Block, Lodhi Colony, the accused Chhote Lal was apprehended on the basis of secret information. HC Satender Yadav alongwith Ct. Asgar Ali and Ct. Suresh were checking the vehicles by putting barricades, the accused came to the spot while driving Chetak scooter. On casual search, HC Satender recovered one buttondar knife from the possession of the accused. Sketch of the knife was prepared and the knife was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW 1/A and Ex.PW1/B, respectively, and sealed with the seal of 'SK' and accordingly, FIR Ex. PW 3/A was registered on the basis of rukka exhibited as Ex.PW 3/B prepared by the IO.
2. On the conclusion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed and copy was supplied to the accused. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 25 Arms Act, 1959 on 06.01.2009, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses. PW 1 Ct. Suresh Chand deposed that he was on patrolling duty along with HC Satender Yadav, Ct. Asgar Ali, Ct. Manjeet Singh and Ct. Umesh Kumar. He further deposed that a secret information was given regarding the accused persons to HC Satender Yadav and accordingly raiding party was prepared after giving intimation to the concerned SHO. It is further stated that they put a barricade near the gate of Navyug School and started checking the vehicles. As per PW 1 the accused came from the side of Mausam Bhawan while driving on a scooter. On direction to stop he accelarated the speed of the scooter and the scooter was stopped by using the appropriate force. The accused was driving the scooter and another person namely Avdhesh FIR No. 244/08 State Vs. Chote Lal Page No 2 of 5 was pillion rider. He further deposed that on casual search of the accused by HC Satyender a button actuated knife was recovered from the right pocket of pant of the accused. He further deposed as to the investigation proceedings carried out by the IO. It is also stated by PW1 that during interrogation the accused disclosed his involvement in some other cases vide disclosure statement Ex.PW1/E. Some stolen case property also stated to have been recovered at the instance of the accused. The witness was not crossexamined despite giving the opportunity.
4. PW2 HC Asgar Ali deposed the same facts as stated by PW1 in his testimony. During his crossexamination he does not remember the DD number of the patrolling duty. He further stated in his cross examination that no notice was given to the accused prior to taking his search and the prior search was not offered by the IO before search of the accused.
5. PW 3 HC Ravinder Kumar was posted as Duty Officer on 09.11.2008 and deposed to have recorded the FIR Ex.PW3/A on the basis of rukka sent by the IO.
6. PW4 HC Satyender is the Investigating Officer of this case. The examination in chief of this witness is on the lines of PW1. He was crossexamined at length. During crossexamination he stated that place of occurrence is a crowded public place and he denied to have offer his search before the search of the accused. He further stated that the recovered knife was made up of steel having fish like description and graved on the handle of the knife with red mark in front of the handle. He also stated that on the sketch of the knife colour blue and red mark are not mentioned. He denied to have recorded the name and address of the public persons.
7. Statement of accused U/s 294 CrPC recorded wherein he had FIR No. 244/08 State Vs. Chote Lal Page No 3 of 5 admitted the factum of notification of Delhi Government. Thereafter, statement of accused U/s 313 r/w 281 CrPC was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication.
8. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully.
9. In this case, no public witness has been joined in the investigation. PW1 and PW4 have deposed that 45 passers by were requested to join the investigation but they refused to join. Admittedly, no notice was given to the public persons who refused to join the investigation. The testimony of official witness does not find corroboration from any independent source. In my view, the non joining of public witness is fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when no reasonable explanation has been given by the prosecution for non joining of public witnesses. In the case of Chanan Singh Vs. State 1986 Crl. Rev. No.720 (P&H) 94, it was held that it was obligatory on the part of the police to join independent witnesses and the statement of official witness that witnesses refused to join investigation was rejected as an afterthought.
10. There are some infirmities in the testimony of PW4 with respect to the description of the recovered knife. He stated in his cross examination that the recovered knife was made up of steel having fish like description and engraved on the handle of the knife with red mark in front of the handle. He also stated that on the sketch of the knife colour blue and red mark are not mentioned.
11. Also, the search of the accused person was done without first doing the personal search of police official. The same is accordingly violative of mandatory provision of personal search. Thus, the possibility of planting of the knife cannot be completely ruled out.
12. The prosecution has also failed to prove the Sanction u/s 39 of FIR No. 244/08 State Vs. Chote Lal Page No 4 of 5 the Arms Act which is mandatory.
13. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled legal proposition that the any benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
14. In these circumstances, there is reasonable doubt of the button operated knife having been recovered from the possession of the accused. It being so, benefit of same is given to the accused. Hence, the accused Chote Lal is acquitted of the charge u/s 25 Arms Act, 1959 framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. Case property be confiscated to the State and be destroyed after expiry of period of appeal. Personal bond and surety bond stand cancelled. Endorsement, if any, be cancelled. Documents, if any, be returned.
15. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
Announced in the Open Court (PAWAN KUMAR)
On 8th March, 2013 MM12/ SE/ Saket Courts.
FIR No. 244/08
State Vs. Chote Lal Page No 5 of 5