Delhi District Court
Fir No. 294/05 State vs . Salauddin on 25 February, 2008
FIR No. 294/05 State Vs. Salauddin
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : DELHI
STATE Vs. Sallaudin @ Salu Date of Institution 29/06/05
FIR No. 294/05 Judgment Reserved 25/02/08
on
PS- Kashmere Gate Date of Judgment 25/02/08
Under 25/54/59 Arms
Section Act
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case 127/3
b) Date of offence 31/05/05
c) Name of the complainant Ct. Jagbir Singh
d) Name & address of the accused Salaudin @ Sallu S/o
Sahabuddin R/o H.No.
128, Katra Gokul Sah,
Jama Masjid, Delhi.
e) The offence complained of 25/54/59 Arms Act
f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
g) The final order Acquitted
h) Date of order 25/02/08
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Brief case of prosecution against the accused is that FIR No. 294/05 State Vs. Salauddin 2 on31/05/05 at about 8:40 PM at outgate, local bus stand, within the jurisdiction of PS Kashmere Gate, the accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife without any permit or licence and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 25/54 Arms Act, 1959.
2. On filing of chargesheet by police personnel, my learned predecessor supplied necessary copies to accused and after prima facie finding grounds to presume that accused persons committed offence punishable Under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, framed charge against him to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution examined only one witnesses in support of its case. Summary of statement of accused U/S 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately on 28/01/08. The accused did not lead any evidence and final arguments on behalf of parties were heard.
4. I have considered final arguments of Learned APP for the FIR No. 294/05 State Vs. Salauddin 3 state, and learned counsel for the accused, and have also perused the record.
5. On perusal of evidence, I am in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for defence that prosecution has failed to discharge its onus to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
6. It has been rightly submitted by learned counsel for defence that prosecution story that public witnesses were requested to join the investigation cannot be relied because no name of persons who were requested to join investigation is given either in the FIR or in chargesheet or in the evidence of witnesses, though it has been admitted that spot of crime is very congested locality where passerby are always present. It has been held by superior courts in a number of cases that in the absence of corroboration by independent witness of recovery, evidence of police officials cannot be relied upon.
FIR No. 294/05 State Vs. Salauddin 4
7. Even preparation of sketch plan of knife is doubtful as the same bears FIR number of the case whereas PW1 has deposed that he prepared sketch plan on arrest of the accused and thereafter FIR was registered. Therefore, there was no FIR No. at the time of preparation of the plan of knife but plan bears FIR No. of the case. Hence very preparation of plan and recovery of knife become doubtful. The accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
8. Further, prosecution has failed to examine the complainant to prove its case and support the testimony of PW1. Only the complainant was competent witness to depose about the manner and circumstances under which accused has apprehended by him and knife was recovered from his possession.
9. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case. Hence, the accused is acquitted. His bail FIR No. 294/05 State Vs. Salauddin 5 bond cancelled. Surety discharged. Case property i.e knife be destroyed after expiry of period of appeal. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008 (AJAY PANDEY) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI.