Delhi District Court
State vs . Hari Ram on 20 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHUNALI GUPTA, ACMM (NORTH
DISTRICT)
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
FIR No. 86/2006
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0815472007
Police Station Mukherjee Nagar
Under Section 61114 Excise Act
State Vs. Hari Ram
JUDGEMENT
(a) Sr. No. of case 366/3/16.9.2006
(b) Date of offence 9.1.2009
(c) Complainant Ct. Ravinder Kumar, No. 992/NW, PS
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi
(d) Accused Hari Ram S/o Shri Chirangi Lal R/o Jhuggi
No.176, Outram Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
(e) Offence 61114 Excise Act
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final order Acquitted for the offence(s) U/s 61114
Excise Act
(h) Date of institution 29.7.2006
(i) Date when judgment 20.10.2015
was reserved
(j) Date of judgment 20.10.2015
1. Accused Hari Ram is facing trial on the allegations of the prosecution that on 23.2.2006, at about 8:10 PM, at Gali Jhuggi, Outram Lane, near Gurudwara, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Mukherjee Nagar, he was found in possession of FIR No. 86/06 PS Mukherjee Nagar U/s 61114 Excise Act State Vs. Hari Ram 1 10 plastic bottles of illicit liquor without any valid licence or permit and in contravention of Notification issued by the Delhi Administration.
2. 'Rukka' was prepared by IO/ HC Harjeet and thereafter, Duty Officer recorded the FIR. The time of incident is 8:10 PM and time of dispatch of tehrir is 9.40 PM. FIR was got recorded on the day of incident itself i.e. 23.2.2006.
3. Investigation as mentioned above commenced and concluded upon filing of chargesheet. Charge for offence U/s 61114 Excise Act was framed against the accused on 15.3.2010. Accused opted to contest the matter.
4. In support of its case, prosecution has examined four witnesses.
PW1 is SI Roop Chand. He deposed in the witness box that on 23.2.2006, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Mukherjee Nagar. On that day, he recorded FIR Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement on 'Rukka' Ex.PW1/B. PW2 is HC Venu Gopal. He deposed in the witness box that on 30.3.2006, he was posted at PS Mukherjee Nagar as Ct. On that day, on the instructions of IO he collected the sample from MHC(M) duly sealed with the seal of HS and deposited the same with Excise Lab ITO Delhi vide RC No. 22/21/06. The sample remained intact while it remained in his possession. He received acknowledgment from Excise Lab which was deposited by him with MHC(M). IO recorded his statement.
PW3 Ct. Ravinder Singh deposed that on 23.2.2006, he was posted as Constable in PS Mukherjee Nagar. On that day, while patrolling he reached at Aggarwal Sweets, opposite Gurudwara. At about 8.10 p.m., he reached near the corner of Gurudwara, he saw one person along with one plastic cane. After seeing him in police uniform he got scared. On suspicion, he apprehended him and inquired FIR No. 86/06 PS Mukherjee Nagar U/s 61114 Excise Act State Vs. Hari Ram 2 about the cane. He did not give any satisfactory answer. He opened the cane and found that it contained illicit liquor. He gave information to the PS. After some time HC Harjeet Singh reached at the spot. IO recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter IO asked him to go to PS and carry one bucket. After some time he came back at the spot along with bucket and one empty bottle of 750 ml. After measuring, they found that the plastic cane contained 11 bottles of liquor. IO took out one bottle as sample and remaining liquor was poured in the plastic cane and both were sealed with the seal of HS. IO seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/E. IO also filled form M29. IO handed over the seal, form No. 29 and tehrir to him and sent him to PS for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and got the FIR registered. IO prepared site plan Ex.PW3/B at his instance. IO arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/C and searched the accused vide personal search memo Ex.PW3/D. MHC (M) produced one plastic cane with broken seal.
PW4 HC Harjeet Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. He deposed that on 23.2.2006, he was posted as HC in PS Mukherjee Nagar. On that day, at about 8.20 p.m., after receiving DD entry No.60B he went to the spot i. e. near the corner of Gurudwara, Jhuggi Outram Lane. After reaching there he met with Ct. Ravinder who apprehended one person i. e. the accused with one plastic cane. On checking, they found that the plastic cane contained liquor. He recorded statement of Ct. Ravinder Ex.PW3/A. After that, he directed Constable Ravinder to go to PS and carry one bucket and empty bottle of 750 ml. After measuring they found that the plastic cane contained 11 bottles of liquor. He took out one bottle as sample and remaining liquor was poured in the plastic cane and both were sealed with the seal of HS. He seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/E. He FIR No. 86/06 PS Mukherjee Nagar U/s 61114 Excise Act State Vs. Hari Ram 3 also filled form M29. He prepared the 'Rukka' Ex.PW4/A. He handed over the seal, form No. 29 and tehrir to Ct. Ravinder and sent him to PS for registration of FIR who went to the PS and got the FIR registered. He prepared site plan Ex.PW3/B at the instance of Ct. Ravinder. He arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/C and searched the accused vide personal search memo Ex.PW3/D. He recorded the statement of the witness. He released the accused on bail at the spot. MHC (M) produced one plastic cane with broken seal.
5. Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC wherein entire incriminating was put to him to which he pleaded innocence. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. No defence evidence has been led.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The investigation conducted by the material witnesses including independent public witnesses is the only yardstick for assessing the genuineness of the story put forth by the prosecution. No independent / public witness was brought to the witness box to testify the testimonies / depositions of the witnesses examined during the course of trial and thus their testimonies remained uncorroborated. The non joining of the public witness creates doubt on the story of the prosecution as held in PAWAN KUMAR Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION 1987 CC Cases 585 HC by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Otherwise also it is settled law that testimonies of police personnels have to be read with due care and caution especially when the same are not supported by any other independent witness to the recovery.
A bare perusal of testimonies and the documents proved by them only drags the fate of the matter towards its fag end. The reasons amongst others, for arriving at this conclusion, are as under: FIR No. 86/06 PS Mukherjee Nagar U/s 61114 Excise Act State Vs. Hari Ram 4 ✔ The recovery was effected from a public place, Still no public witness was joined in the investigation.
✔ No notice was served upon the public persons for nonjoining the proceedings.
✔ The accused was arrested on 23.2.2006 whereas the sample was sent to Excise Laboratory on 30.3.2006. There is a delay of 37 days in sending the sample. No reason assigned.
✔ Memo of handing over seal was not prepared.
8. Further a bare perusal of testimonies of PW's, their version appear to be stereo typed and keeping in view the fact that their narration remained uncorroborated by any other independent witness to recovery of illicit liquor , it will be highly unsafe to rely upon their version to pass the order of conviction against the accused. It has been held in 1975 CAR 309 (SC) that "Prosecution case resting solely on the testimony of head constable and four other police constables no independent witness examined prosecution story appearing improbable and unnatural ' held that the prosecution case can not be said to be free from reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be acquitted."
9. Keeping in view the above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, it will be highly unsafe the pass the order of the conviction against the accused on the basis of the material available before me in the present case. Thus, I am left with no option but to hold that prosecution failed miserably to prove its case against FIR No. 86/06 PS Mukherjee Nagar U/s 61114 Excise Act State Vs. Hari Ram 5 the accused beyond the shadow of doubt. Benefit of doubt is, therefore, given to the accused and accused Hari Ram, therefore, stands acquitted from the charge U/s 61 114 Excise Act. His bail bond cancelled and surety stands discharged. Endorsement, if any, be also cancelled. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court
Today on 20.10.2015 (SHUNALI GUPTA)
ACMM (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 86/06 PS Mukherjee Nagar U/s 61114 Excise Act State Vs. Hari Ram 6