Delhi District Court
Prosecution Weak And Suspicious. In ... vs . Gurmel on 9 July, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH :
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : NEW DELHI
F.I.R. 414/07
P.S. Malviya Nagar
U/s. 25 (1B) (b) Arms Act
State v. RAHUL @ TAKLA
S/o Sh. Prakassh Singh
R/o H.No. 13 Jhuggi, Lal Gumbad,
Punchsheel Park, New Delhi
JUDGMENT :
a. Srl. No. of Case : 68/3 b. Date of Institution : 3.05.07 c. Date of Commission of Offence : 17.04.07 d. Name of the complainant : Ct. Dal Chand, No. 2228/SD e. Offence complained of : U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act f. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty g. Date of reserving Judgment : 09.07.2010 h. Final order : Acquitted h. Date of pronouncement : 09.07.2010 Brief reasons for the decision of the case.
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.04.07 at about 9.40 PM while Ct. Dal Chand was on petrolling duty at DDA F.I.R. no. 414/07 Page no. 1 of 8 Park, near Shamshan Ghat he saw the accused who was trying to slip away from there on seeing so on suspicion he apprehended the accused and on his casual search one buttondar knife was recovered from his possession so Ct. Dal Chand informed the P.S. Malviya Nagar, on this S.I. Daleep Kumar came to the spot and got the case FIR registered against the accused U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act in PS Malviya Nagar through Ct. Dal Chand. Statement of witnesses were recorded, site plan was prepared, accused was arrested and after completion of all necessary investigation challan U/s 173 Cr.P.C was presented in the Court for trial against the accused.
2. Accused was produced from J/C to face the trial, so copy of challan as required U/s 207 Cr. PC was supplied to him, thereafter case was fixed for consideration of charge.
3. After hearing arguments and on perusal of record, prima facie offence under Section 25 Arms Act, was made out against the accused Rahul @ Takla. Charge was framed accordingly against the accused on 01.06.07. Thereafter case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. Prosecution has produced and examined as many as three witnesses i.e, PW 1 A.S.I. Kamal Singh, PW2 H.Ct. Dal Chand and PW3 S.I. Daleep Kumar.
5. PW 1 A.S.I. Kamal Singh testified that he was Duty Officer F.I.R. no. 414/07 Page no. 2 of 8 on 17.04.07 and on receipt of rukka from Ct. Dal Chand, he registered F.I.R. no. 414/07 Ex. PW 1/A and thereafter he put his endorsement on rukka Ex. PW 1/B. Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW 1.
6. PW2 Ct. Dal Chand testified that on 17.04.07 he was on petrolling duty and when he reached near DDA Park, Shamshan Ghat he saw one person who on seeing him tried to slip from the spot so on suspicion he apprehended that person and during his casual search one buttondar knife was recovered from the right pocket of his pant. Thereafter he informed the DO at P.S. Malviya Nagar so I.O. S.I. Dalip Kumar came on the spot and he handed over the accused to him along with knife. PW2 further testified that I.O. prepared sketch of knife Ex. PW 1/A after taking its measurement. Thereafter knife was put into pullinda and sealed with the seal of DK and seal after use was handed over to him and knife was seized vide memo Ex. PW 1/B. PW2 further testified that I.O. recorded his statement Ex. PW 1/C and also prepared the rukka and got the case F.I.R. registered through him so he went to P.S. and after registration of case F.I.R. came back at the spot and handed over copy of F.I.R. and original rukka to the I.O. PW2 further testified that accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW 1/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW 1/E and I.O. also prepared site plan at his instance. PW2 identified the knife correctly as Ex. P1.
Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW2.
F.I.R. no. 414/07 Page no. 3 of 8
7. PW3 S.I. Daleep Kumar testified that on 17.04.07 on receipt of DD No. 60B he reached at Begumpur Park, near Gate of Cremation ground where Ct. Dal Chand handed over accused along with knife to him. Thereafter he recorded statement of Ct. Dal Chand Ex. PW 1/C and after taking measurement of knife he prepared the sketch of knife Ex. PW 1/A. Thereafter he put the knife into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of DK which belongs to him and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW 1/B. PW3 further testified that he prepared rukka Ex. PW 3/A and got the case F.I.R. registered through Ct. Dal Chand. PW3 further testified that he prepared site plan Ex. PW 3/B at the instance of Ct. Dal Chand and thereafter arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW 1/D and conducted personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW 1/E. PW3 also identified the knife correctly as Ex. P1.
Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW 3.
8. Statement of accused Rahul @ Takla was recorded U/s 281 Cr.P.C wherein he has denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. However, accused did not prefer to lead any defence evidence.
9. I have heard the ld. APP for the State and accused and have also carefully perused the entire record and the relevant provisions of the law.
10. On careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence on F.I.R. no. 414/07 Page no. 4 of 8 record I find that no corroborative, consistent reliable and sufficient evidence to make up the edifice of the prosecution case has been produced by the prosecution. Moreover, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence.
11. It is the case of prosecution that accused was apprehended by the PW2 while he was trying to slip away from the spot on seeing him at DDA Park, Shamshan Ghat and on his search a buttondar knife was recovered from possession of accused. Information was sent to P.S. so PW 3 came at the spot and he prepared the sketch of knife Ex. PW 1/A and seized the knife vide memo Ex. PW 1/B and after registration of case F.I.R. Ex. PW 1/A, PW3 arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW 1/D.
12. Prosecution has examined one witness of recovery of buttondar knife from the possession of the accused i.e. PW2 Ct. Dal Chand and PW3 is I.O. who came at the spot after receipt of DD No. 60B.
13. PW2 testified that I.O. came on the spot and prepared the sketch of knife Ex. PW 1/A, thereafter he seized the knife vide memo Ex. PW 1/B and thereafter I.O. recorded his statement Ex. PW 1/C but according to the I.O. /PW3 he first of all recorded the statement of PW2 Ex. PW 1/C. The testimony of PW2 is not corroborated with PW3. In rukka Ex. PW 3/A I.O. /PW3 stated that he reached on the spot and first of all recorded the statement of PW2. Further neither F.I.R. no. 414/07 Page no. 5 of 8 PW2 nor PW3 have testified a single word about the calling of public witnesses for joining the investigation whereas in rukka Ex. PW 3/A I.O. himself stated that he called the public persons to join the investigation. Further, it is also interesting that PW2 testified that the seal was handed over to him after sealing the pullanda with the seal of DK by PW3 but PW3 who sealed the pullanda has not testified about handing over of seal after use to PW2. In these circumstances the testimony of PW2 and PW3 are not consistent and corroborative and there are various contradictions so the sole testimony of PW2 cannot be relied upon for the purpose of conviction of accused.
14. During the investigation of the case neither public witnesses were joined nor seems to be any sincere efforts made in this regard, even none of prosecution witness testified that he had called any public person to join the investigation. So this makes the case of the prosecution weak and suspicious. In State of Punjab vs. Gurmel Singh 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reporters 361 Hon'ble Court held that : " Where there were 20 shops nearby and the investigating officer had ample opportunity to join independent witness statement of official witnesses would not be sufficient to convict the accused. Contention of the prosecution that the police officials had no ill will to involve the accused in false case was repelled.' '
15. The perusal of the sketch of the knife Ex. PW 1/A and seizure memo Ex PW 1/B shows that FIR number is mentioned therein. There is not a single word in the testimony of PW3 as to F.I.R. no. 414/07 Page no. 6 of 8 when and at what stage FIR number was inserted in Ex PW 1/A and Ex PW 1/B. Moreover, the testimony of PW3 is also totally silent on this aspect. In these circumstances, either FIR was recorded posterior in time or that documents were prepared after the recording of FIR. In case Mohd Hasim Vs. State 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 569 (Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. A Siddiqui) it was observed that documents prepared before registering the FIR bears FIR numbers, meaning thereby either FIR was recorded posterior in time or that documents were prepared after the recording of FIR, and was hold that in both case, prosecution case would collapse.
16. In these circumstances, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence.
17. Apart from this, the presence of PW2 at the spot is not proved. If he had departed from PS for performing petrolling duty, the entry to this effect must exist in the Roznamcha but that has not been proved, raising an adverse presumption against the prosecution U/s 114 (g) of the Evidence Act and if the said Roznamcha had been produced it would have not shown their departure at all.
18. It is true evidence it to be weighted and not counted but in this case whatever evidence has been produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to fortify the edifice of the prosecution case and th prosecution has failed to prove all the links, the benefit of doubt has been given to the accused. In view of this I am fortified with the F.I.R. no. 414/07 Page no. 7 of 8 observations made in the case State of Rajasthan Vs. Daulat Ram 1980 CAR 169 (SC) where it was held that prosecution failed to proved all the links. Accused was acquitted.
19. In view of the above, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused and he is given the benefit of doubt and therefore accused Rahul @ Takla is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 25 (1B) (b) of the Arms Act for which he stands charged.
Announced in the Open Court
on 09.07.2010 (RAVINDER SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate:
New Delhi.
F.I.R. no. 414/07 Page no. 8 of 8