Delhi District Court
State vs . Robin on 13 August, 2012
State vs. Robin
IN THE COURT OF SH ANUJ AGARWAL: MM01(SE)/
SAKET COURT: DELHI
State vs. Robin
FIR NO. : 243/06
U/S : 25 Arms Act
PS : Badarpur
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 180/3
b) Date of institution of the case : 09.07.08
c) Date of commission of offence : 23.03.06
d) Name of the complainant : Ct. Sanjiv Kumar
e) Name & address of the : Robin S/o Inos Masih
accused R/o H.No. 952, Gautampuri PhI,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
f) Offence charged with : 25 Arms Act
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 13.08.12
i) Final order : Acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 13.08.12
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, accused has been sent to face trial with the allegations that on 23.03.06 at 9.30 PM at main Mathura road, near FIR No. 243/06 PS Badarpur 1 of 7 State vs. Robin Jaitpur road, Badarpur, within the jurisdiction of PS Badarpur, accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife without any licence in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration. Investigation was carried out.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C.
was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused person was consequently summoned. A formal charge U/s 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
4. PW1 SI Laxmi Chand is the duty officer who recorded the formal FIR. He proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW 1/A and his endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW1/B.
5. PW2 is Ct. Sanjeev who has deposed that on 23.03.06 while patrolling he reached at Jaitpur road where accused on seeing him tried to escape. He has further deposed that on suspicion, accused was apprehended and from his search one buttondar knife was recovered. He has further deposed that SI B.N. Yadav met him to whom the accused with case property was handed over. He has FIR No. 243/06 PS Badarpur 2 of 7 State vs. Robin further deposed that IO recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. He has further deposed that knife was measured, total length was 24 Cms. and blade was 11 Cms. He has further deposed that knife was sealed with the seal of BNY. He has further deposed that IO prepared Tehrir Ex.PW2/D and got the case registered. He duly proved sketch of knife Ex.PW2/B, seizure memo Ex.PW2/C, Arrest memo Ex.PW2/E and personal search memo as Ex.PW2/F. He has further deposed that accused had also got recovered two mobiles which was also seized vide memo Ex.PW2/G. He identified the case property i.e. knife as Ex.P1 which was produced with broken seal. During his cross examination he has deposed that request was made to public persons but no one came forward and no written notice was served upon them. He has further deposed that seal was handed over to him by IO.
6. PE was closed by order of this court on 13.08.12.
Memorandum of statement of accused U/s 281 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he has refuted the allegations levelled against him in toto. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence in his favour.
7. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
8. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to FIR No. 243/06 PS Badarpur 3 of 7 State vs. Robin prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
9. As per the prosecution case, two documents i.e. sketch memo of the knife Ex.PW2/B and the seizure memo of the knife Ex.PW2/C were prepared before the preparation of the Rukka. However, the said documents would show that they contained the number of the FIR. It shows the serious infirmity in the case of prosecution as either the number of the FIR was inserted later on or that they were prepared before the time they have been shown to have been prepared. Be that as it may the same creates a reasonable doubt in the story of prosecution. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Giri Raj Vs. State 83 (2000) DLT 201, Mohd. Hashim, Appellant Vs. State, 2000 CRI.L.J. 1510, Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration, 1987 CCC 585 and Mewa Ram Vs. State 2000 CRI.L.J. 114.
10. As per the case of the prosecution, the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Sanjeev who is the complainant in the present case and was not given to any independent public person which causes a FIR No. 243/06 PS Badarpur 4 of 7 State vs. Robin reasonable doubt in the story of the prosecution. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.C. (Criminal) 452, Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa (2005) 9 SCC 773 and Bijay Vs. State (G.N.C.T. of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI) 562.
11. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. In the present case, no departure or the arrival entry has been proved on the record by the prosecution. In absence of the departure and arrival entry of the police officials their presence at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be made to on Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29.
12. In the present case, as per PW2, request was made to public persons but none came forward. However, no written notice was served upon them to join the proceedings in the present case or to FIR No. 243/06 PS Badarpur 5 of 7 State vs. Robin face action U/sec. 187 IPC. Failure on the part of prosecution to make sincere efforts for joining independent public witnesses in the proceedings when they are available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution in view of the following case laws.
13. In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi V/s State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under: '' It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC''.
14. Further more, it is relevant to note when the case property was produced before the court, the seal was broken. In such a circumstances, fabrication with case property cannot be ruled out.
FIR No. 243/06 PS Badarpur 6 of 7
State vs. Robin
15. Therefore, in view of the discussions made herein above and the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Robin stands acquitted of the offence Under Sec. 25 Arms Act. 1959, he has been charged with. Case property be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court
on 13.08.12 (Anuj Agarwal)
MM01(SE)/Delhi / 13.08.12
FIR No. 243/06 PS Badarpur 7 of 7