Delhi District Court
State vs . Vishnu Rakhit. on 25 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH : MM : DELHI
State Vs. Vishnu Rakhit.
FIR No. 838/04
U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act, 1959.
PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
a) The sl. no. of the case : 292/03.
b) The Unique ID No. of the case : 02401R5884252004.
c) The date of commission of the : 30/09/2004.
offence
d) The date of institution of case : 02/11/2004.
e) The name of the complainant : Constable Ranbir Singh.
f) The name & address of accused : Vishnu Rakhit S/o
Sh. Muthu Rakhit
R/o. C310, GPBlock,
Pitam Pura, Delhi.
g) The offence complained of : U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act.
h) The plea of the accused : pleaded not guilty.
i) The date of reserving the order : 25/02/2012.
j) The final order : Acquitted.
k) The date of such order : 25/02/2012.
FIR No. 838/04
PS Shalimar Bagh 1
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT :
1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30/09/2004 at about 12:30 am, at near the gate of Sarvodya School, GPBlock, Pitam Pura, Delhi, accused Vishnu Rakhit was found in possession of one prohibited buttondar knife, having total length 24 cm, in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration. After investigation, challan was filed by the police.
2. Complete set of copies were supplied to the accused and after hearing arguments, charge was framed against the accused for trial of offence U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act by my Ld. Predecessor to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its, the prosecution examined PW.1 ASI Ram Daras, Duty Officer, who has proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW1/A and also made endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW1/B. PW.2 is Constable Ranbir Singh, recovery witness, who was on patrolling duty with constable Surender and had joined the investigation alongwith IO ASI Sultan Singh and has proved FIR No. 838/04 PS Shalimar Bagh 2 his statement Ex. PW2/A, the sketch of recovered knife vide memo Ex. PW2/B, seizure of the knife vide memo Ex. PW2/C, site plan vide Ex. PW2/D, arrest of accused vide memo Ex. PW2/E, personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW2/F and also identified the case property in court vide Ex. P1. PW.3 is IO ASI Sultan Singh, who had investigated the case and has proved rukka Ex. PW3/A and also identified the case property in court vide Ex. P1. PW.4 is HC Surender, who was also a part of investigation and has deposed about the proceedings conducted at the spot by the IO.
4. Statement of accused was recorded U/s. 313/281 CrPC, wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication in this case, however, he did not wish to examine any witness in support of his defence.
5. I have heard arguments from Ld. APP for State, accused in person and also gone through the evidence and documents on record carefully.
6. To prove the offence U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act, the prosecution has to prove that accused was found in possession of one prohibited buttondar knife. First FIR No. 838/04 PS Shalimar Bagh 3 of all, no public witness has been joined by the IO in this case. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sans Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi 1999, Cri LJ 19 as under :
"3. Inter alia, it has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant that it would not be safe to maintain the conviction because the recovery of the illicit arms did not inspire confidence, supported as it is, by the evidence of two police officials alone, unassociated by the testimony of any independent witnesses. It has also been urged that witnesses of the public were available and neither were they associated nor was any explanation given at the trial as to why they were not associated. From the evidence of PW.5 Head Constable, Sat Pal Singh, it is clear that the police party did not ask public witness to be witness at the time of search of the accused. Likewise PW.6 Sub Inspector, Mahipal Singh has also stated that no public witness was joined at the time when the recovery was being effected. It is thus evident that public witnesses were available and could have been associated to witness the recovery. It would have been a different matter altogether had there been no public witness available or none was willing to associate. Here, as said before, public witnesses were available but no explanation on these lines is forthcoming. Thus, we got to the view that it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offences charged. We, therefore, order his acquittal".
In the present case, the prosecution case is that on 30/09/2004 accused Vishnu Rakhit was apprehended at about 12:30 am, at near the gate of Sarvodya School, GPBlock, Pitam Pura, Delhi, which is a public place and where many public persons would be available, however, no sincere effort seems to have been made by the IO to join any public witness either at the time of recovery or at the time of investigation.
FIR No. 838/04 PS Shalimar Bagh 4
Further, as per prosecution case and statement of recovery witness PW2 constable Ranbir, the case property after recovery was sealed with the seal of SSG at the spot and was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B. However, when the case property was brought in court at the time of examination of PW2, it was noticed that the seal on the same was in broken condition, which creates doubt on the prosecution story whether any such property, as alleged by the prosecution was ever recovered from possession of accused.
7. In these circumstances, the recovery from the accused is doubtful and I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Hence, I hereby acquit the accused for the offence he has been charged with. He is on bail. His bail bond shall remain bound for another six months U/s. 437A CrPC. The case property be confiscated to the state, as per rules. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON 25/02/2012. (VISHAL SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate
(Copies 1 + 1) Delhi
FIR No. 838/04
PS Shalimar Bagh 5