Delhi District Court
State vs . Som Dutt@ Som on 1 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. HEM RAJ: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
(WEST)09:TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI
STATE Vs. SOM DUTT@ SOM
FIR No : 533/2001
U/S : 25 ARMS ACT
P.S : VIKAS PURI
1. Serial No. of the Case : 14/3/10
2. Unique ID No, of the : 02401R103572003
3. Date of Commission of Offence : 21.11.2001
4. Date of institution of the case : 29.08.2002
5. Name of the complainant : ASI Kanwar Pal Singh
6. Name of accused & address : Som Dutt @ Som
S/o Sh. Tulsi Ram
R/o House No.353, Village
Hastasal, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
7. Offence complained : 25 Arms Act 1959.
8. Offence Charged with : 25 Arms Act 1959.
9. Plea of Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
10.Final Order : Acquitted
11.Date of Final Order : 01.05.2012
J U D G M E N T
1 The prosecution has filed a charge sheet against the accused on the allegations that on 21.11.2001 at about 6.35 PM, at Taqila Restaurant, Vikas Puri, Delhi, the accused was apprehended at the instance of the secret informer.
FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.1/19 He was searched and on his search one country made katta loaded with one live cartridge was recovered from the left dubb of the pants of the accused without any license thereof. Accordingly, accused was alleged to have committed the offence U/S 25 Arms Act, 1959.
2 After the completion of the investigation a charge sheet under section 25 Arms Act was filed against the accused. In compliance of section 207 Cr PC the copy of the charge sheet along with other documents were supplied to him and later on, vide order dated 07.10.2003, charge for the offence under section 25 Arms Act was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3 In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses.
4 PW1 HC Vikram was the MHC(M). He deposed that on 21.11.2001, HC Ramesh Kaushik deposited a sealed pullanda with the seal of KPS and he made the relevant entry in the Register No. 19 vide Entry No. 134. He further deposed that on 10.12.2001 vide RC No. 77/21 Ct. Sher Singh took the said pullanda to the FSL with FSL Form. He further deposed on 05.05.2002, he received one pullanda sealed with the seal of FSL and he deposited the same in FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.2/19 the Malkhana. He proved the photocopy of the relevant entry as Ex. PW1/A1, A2 and A3 respectively. He was crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel. 5 PW2 HC Bijender Singh was the DO and he proved the FIR as Ex. PW2/A and endorsement on the Ruqqa as Ex. PW2/B. He was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
6 PW3 Sh. K.C. Varshney examined the fire arm recovered from the accused at the FSL. He deposed that on 10.12.2001 FSL received the sample with the seal of KPS and at that time the seal was intact. He found in the pullanda one country made pistol of point 315 bore and one cartridge of 8 mm /.315 bore. The same were marked as Ex. F1 and A1 by him respectively. He examined the exhibits and prepared his report Ex. PW3/A. He deposed that the country made pistol Ex. F1 was in working order and cartridge Ex. A1 was live cartridge which was test fired through country made pistol Ex. F1. As per his opinion, Ex. F1 and A1 were fired arm and the ammunition respectively as defined in Arms Act. The exhibits were sealed with the seal of KCV, FSL. He correctly identified the Ex. F1 and A1 i.e. country made pistol and used cartridge. He was crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.3/19 7 PW4 Ct. Harish was involved in the investigation of the case. He
deposed that a secret information was received in the special staff of west district by Ct. Laxman which he shared with SI Raj Kumar and InCharge, Special Staff. He deposed that a raiding party was prepared and that at the spot a country made pistol was recovered from the right dubb of the pants of the accused with one cartridge in the same. He further deposed that two pullandas were prepared and sealed with the seal of KPS. He proved the sketch of country made pistol and cartridge as Ex. PW4/A and seizure memo of the same as Ex. PW4/B. He deposed that Ruqqa Ex. PW4/C was prepared which was carried by him to PS and FIR got registered. He also proved the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW4/D and arrest memo of the accused as Ex. PW4/E. He correctly identified the country made pistol and the cartridge.
8 PW5 Retd. SI Kanwar Pal was the first IO of the case. He conducted the preliminary investigation of the case and deposed about the same. He deposed that he asked about 45 public persons to join the raiding party but none agreed. He further deposed that on the personal search of the accused he was found carrying one loaded desi katta in the left pocket of his pants. He deposed that he prepared two separate pullindas of katta and the live cartridge and the same were sealed with the seal of KPS. He was crossexamined at length by FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.4/19 the Ld. Defence Counsel.
9 PW6 HC Sukhwinder was assigned the further investigation of the case. He deposed that he collected the FSL report from FSL Malviya Nagar and applied for the sanction under section 39 Arms Act. He was crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
10 PW ASI Ramesh Kaushik reached at the spot after the apprehension of the accused. He carried out the further investigation of the case. He prepared the site plan. He also recorded the confessional statement of the accused. He arrested the accused and carried out his personal search as well. He sent the case property to the FSL through Ct. Sher Singh. He was crossexamined at length by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
11 PW8 Dependra Pathak was the concerned DCP who accorded the sanction under section 39 of the Arms Act. He proved the sanction as Ex. PW8/A. In the crossexamination he denied the suggestion that he granted the sanction mechanically and without application of mind.
12 PW9 Ct. Sher Singh deposed that on 10.12.2001 he took the FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.5/19
sealed pullinda as per the instructions of HC Ramesh Kaushik to FSL, Malviya Nagar. In the cross examination he stated that he was verbally directed to take the sealed sample to the FSL. He denied the suggestion that the he did not take any sample to the FSL.
13 In his statement under Section section 313 Cr.P.C the accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case by the police. He further stated that he was was falsely implicated in this case by the police. He chose not to lead any defence evidence.
14 I have heard the Ld. APP for the State, Sh. Kumar Avinash as well as Ld. Defence Counsel Sh Satya Parkash. I have also gone through the oral and documentary evidence available on the record carefully. 15 It has been submitted by Ld. APP that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of accused beyond the reasonable doubt It has been further stated that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and trustworthy which have been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.6/19 16 On the other hand, the Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Satya Parkash
submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that there is an ordinate delay in the sending of the samples and the case property to the FSL which has caused the serious prejudice to the case of the prosecution. He further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that the sample and the case property remained intact, till they reached at the FSL in as much as, the prosecution has not proved the FSL form. He contented further that documents prepared before the registration of the FIR contained the number of the same which show that the documents were false documents and prepared in order to falsely implicate the accused in this case. He vehemently argued that the seal after its use was not handed over to any independent person and therefore, the possibility of its misuse cannot be ruled out. It has been further submitted that there are material contradictions in the oral testimonies and the documentary evidence on the record which rendered the case of the prosecution as doubtful. He further argued that no incriminating material has come on the record against the accused and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 17 In a recent case reported as Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhand , 2011CRI.L.J.663, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan, FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.7/19 elaborated the concept of Standard of Proof in a criminal trial in the following terms:
"11. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination or fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend upon its own facts. The court must bear in mind that "human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions." Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone. "The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence." In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induce an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. (Vide: Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159; State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh & Anr. AIR 1973 SC 2407; Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765; Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs.State of West Bengal, (2003) 12 SCC 377; and Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC 230).
12. In Sarwan Sigh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, this court observed (Para12) :
"Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence (before an accused can be convicted."
18 In the judgment of Sucha Singh and Another Vs. State of FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.8/19 Punjab, AIR 2003 Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the term Beyond Reasonable Doubt and observed as under:
21. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence.
Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. [See Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and others, AIR 1990 SC 209 : 1990(1) RCR(Crl.) 297 (SC)]. Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. [See State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840 : 1992(3) RCR(Crl.) 63 (SC)]. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. [See Inder Singh and Anr. v. State of (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC 1091)]. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation. "A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties." (Per Viscount Simon in Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution (1944 AC (PC) 315) quoted in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998). Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth.
Delay in sending the recovered articles to the FSL 19 The Ld. Defence Counsel has argued firstly that the prosecution has not sent the seized country made pistol and the live cartridge urgently to the FSL and the same remained in the malkhana at the police station and manipulation thereof cannot be ruled out. In the judgment of Modan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan , (1978)4SCC 435 the effect of the inordinate delay in sending the recovered arms was considered by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the para 9 of the FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.9/19 judgment in the following words:
"9 .........The recovery of the pistol, Ex. 8 from the person of Modan Singh was on the 20th December at the police station itself and the recovery memo is Ex. P. 23. An empty cartridge, a live cartridge and a pistol case was recovered from the house of Modan Singh on the 23rd and the seizure memo was prepared but the prosecution failed to lead evidence that the material objects were properly kept till they were sent to the expert on 621967 by a special messenger. The investigating officers would only say that the material objects were kept sealed upon 14121966. The prosecution is silent as to in whose custody the material objects were till 621967 ...................................... ."
In Desh Raj @ Dass V/s State, 83 (2000) DLT 262, while relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab 1991CAR 81 and Santa Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 526, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari as His Lordship then was, took the view that the delay of 12 days in sending the samples to the CFSL proved fatal to the prosecution.
20 However, in Valsala Vs. State of Kerala 1993 Crimes 276(SC) and later in State of Gujarat Vs. Ismail U Haji Patel (2003)12 SCC 29, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the delay per se would not be material. What had to be established was that the seized articles were in proper custody and in the proper form and that the sample sent to the chemical analyst for testing was the same that was seized.
21 As per the facts of the prosecution case, the country made pistol and FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.10/19
the live cartridge was recovered from the possession of the accused on 21.11.2001 and the same was deposited in the Malkhana on the same day as well. PW1 MHCM HC Vikram and PW7 ASI Ramesh Kaushik deposed to the same. PW1 proved the relevant extracts of Register no.19 showing the relevant entry at serial number 134 dated 21.11.2001. The relevant entry proved on the record as PW1/A2 shows that one sealed pullanda with the seal of "KPS" was deposited in the Malkhana. PW1 further deposed that on 10.12.2001 vide RC number 77/21 proved on the record as Ex.PW1/A3 was sent to FSL through PW9 Ct. Sher Singh as per the instructions of PW7 ASI Ramesh Kaushik who also deposed the same. Further PW3 K.C. Varshney has deposed that on 10.12.2001 one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of "KPS" was received in the office of FSL and the seal was intact at that time. PW3 was not cross examined in this regard and rather no suggestion was given to him when the sealed pullanda reached at FSL either it was not sealed with the seal of "KPS" or the seal was not intact. PW1 also deposed that seal on the pullanda remained intact till the time the same was in his possession. No suggestion to him was also given by Ld. defence counsel that when the pullanda was sent to the FSL the same was not sealed with the seal of "KPS". Similarly no suggestion was given to PW9 Ct. Sher Singh that when the pullanda was taken by him from MHC(M) and the same was deposited in the FSL it was not sealed with the seal of "KPS". Although it is an admitted fact that the sample remained in the FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.11/19 Malkhana for about 20 days but in my opinion, the prosecution has proved that the sealed pullanada remained untampered from the time it was deposited in the Malkhana till it reached the FSL. In view of the aforesaid discretion I reject the aforesaid contention of the Ld. defence counsel. I place reliance on the judgment of Vasala (supra).
Absence of CFSL Form 22 The Ld. defence counsel has further argued that the prosecution has not proved the CFSL Form in this case which renders the case of the prosecution doubtful and due to which the prosecution case suffers from inherent infirmities. In Desh Raj @ Dass V/s State, 83 (2000) DLT 262, His Lordship Hon'b'e Mr. Justice Dalbeer Bhandari, as His Lordship then, was dealing with a case under Section 402 IPC and 25 Arms Act. In that case, it was held in para 25 that:
" Neither depositing the CFSL form in the Malhkana nor sending it alongwith the sample parcel to the office of the CFSL puts a question mark on the credibility of the prosecution version."
In Lalman Vs. State 75(1998) DLT 224, it was observed by Delhi High Court as under:
"CFSL form is a valuable safeguard to ensure that the sample is not tempered with till its analysis by the CFSL analyst. The CFSL form should not only br prepared and sealed by the officer making the seizure at the place where the case property is seized from the accused, it should also be sealed by the SHO to whom the sample and case property is handed over and the same should accompany the sample to the CFSL. The purpose of the specimen seal is to compare the same with the seals on the sample parcels meant for analysis and report by CFSL to ensure that the purity of FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.12/19 samples are not tempered with. In the absence of the CFSL form, it cannot be said that the purity of the sample remained intact. Benefit of its absence should go the accused."
The same view was taken in Rajan Ali vs. The State( Delhi Administration) 81(1999)DLT 194 by Delhi High Court. Recently in the case of Bijay vs. State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait, also observed the same. The evidence led by the prosecution in this regard would show that PW 5 Retd SI Kanwar Pal Singh deposed that the FSL form was prepared. PW1 HC Vikram MHC(M) also deposed that the FSL form was also deposited with the sealed pullanda in this case. PW9 Ct. Sher Singh, PW3 K.C. Varshney and PW7 ASI Ramesh Kaushik did not depose anything about the FSL form and the same has not been proved on the record. As held in the aforesaid judgments and especially recently in the case of Bijay vs. State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, I opine that the nonsending the FSL form to the FSL alongwith the samples and not proving the same on the record renders the case of the prosecution doubtful. Accordingly, I find that the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused holds good water and I am inclined to go with the same.
FIR No. on the documents prepared prior to its registration:
23 The next argument advanced by Ld. defence counsel was that the FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.13/19 seizure memo Ex.PW4/B and the sketch memo Ex.PW4/A were prepared before the registration of the FIR but the same demonstrate that the FIR has been mentioned on the same which reveals that the FIR number was added on those documents later on and the same causes doubt in the story of the prosecution. In the judgment of Giri Raj V/s State 83 (2000) DELHI LAW TIMES 201, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held in Para 5 as under:
"The prosecution has not offered any explanation whatsoever as to under what circumstances number of the FIR Ex. PW2/A had appeared on the top of the said documents, which were allegedly on the spot before its registration. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW2/A) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution. That being so, the benefit arising out of such a situation must necessarily go to the appellant".
The same view was adopted in the case of Mohd. Hashim, Appellant Vs. State, 2000 CRI.L.J 1510, Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administraton,1987 CCC 585 and Mewa Ram Vs. State 2000 CRI.L.J114. In the present case admittedly the seizure memo Ex PW3/C and the sketch of the country made pistol Ex PW3/B would show that they contained the FIR number on the same but there is no explanation furnished by the prosecution as to how and under what circumstances the same has appeared. The same causes a reasonable doubt in the prosecution story as held in the judgments mention herein above. Therefore, I find great merit in the contention of the Ld. defence FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.14/19 counsel and agree with him that the FIR number on the seizure memo and the sketch memo of the case property creates a reasonable doubt in the story of the prosecution.
Handing Over the seal to the member of the Raiding Party:
24 The Ld. defence counsel has further argued vehemently that the PW5 the first IO of the case, handed over the seal to PW4 Ct. Harish and the same was not handed over to any independent public person and the misuse of the seal cannot be ruled out especially the seal was always available with one of the member of the raiding party. In the judgment of Ramji Singh V/s State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 452, the observations of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Para No. 7 can be reproduced for the sake of the benefit of all:
"The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out".
In Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2005)9 SCC 773, in para 15 of the judgment in this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"15............................In these circumstances there is justification in the argument that since the seal as well as the packets remained in the custody of the same person, there was every possibility of the seized substance being tempered with, and that is the only hypothesis on which the discrepancy in weight can be explained. The least that can be said in the facts of the case is that there is serious doubt about the truthfulness of FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.15/19 the prosecution case."
PW3 Retd. SI Kanwar Pal Singh deposed that the seal after use was handed over to PW4 Ct. Harish who also corroborated the version of the PW5. However, it is beyond comprehension as to why the seal was handed over to PW5 especially when as per the case of the prosecution the independent public persons were present at the spot. While relying upon the judgment of Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2005)9 SCC 773, in Bijay vs. State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi), 2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, Hon,ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait held in para 34 of the said judgment that:
" after sealing the sample, the seal was not handed over to an independent person, rather he kept with him only, which also creates doubt on the sample whether the samples, were intact and not tempered with."
In the judgment of Noor Aga V/s State of Punjab, 2008 (10) SCR 379 which was a case under NDPS Act, the seal was not deposited in malkhana and no explanation was furnished in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it was difficult to hold that the sanctity of the recovery was ensured.
Considering the aforementioned propositions of law as settled by the aforementioned judgments it is amply clear that the same has affected the prosecution case and the same cannot be relied upon so as to return the finding of the conviction of the accused. The contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel has merits in the same and same deserves to be accepted.
FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.16/19 25 From the perusal of the oral and the documentary evidence led by the
prosecution, I am of the considered view that there are inherent material contradictions on the record which has rendered the case of the prosecution as unbelievable and unworthy of any credence. As per the case, the loaded country made pistol with one live cartridge was recovered from the left dubb of the pants of the accused. The rukka Ex. PW2/B and the siezure memo Ex PW4/B also mentioned the same. However, PW5, first IO Retd. SI Kanwar Pal Singh deposed that the same was recovered from the left pocket of the pants of the accused despite of the fact that he was the person who recovered the same. PW4 Ct. Harish deposed that the same was recovered from the right side dubb of the pants of the accused. The testimony of PW5 was not challenged by the Ld. APP for the State at all meaning thereby that he has agreed with the same. The testimony of PW4 was challenged by the Ld. APP for the state but as far as the recovery of the case property was concerned the same was not challenged at all. Similarly, it is the case of the prosecution that after the recovery only one pullinda was made of the country made katta and the live cartridge which is clear from ruqqa Ex. PW2/B and seizure memo Ex. PW4/B but PW5, who prepared the same deposed that two pullindas were prepared. Similar was the version of PW4. Interestingly, the said version of both the prosecution witnesses were not challenged by the State which FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.17/19 was clearly in contradiction to the case of the prosecution and was equally fatal. PW1 MHC(M) HC Vikram deposed that only one sealed pullinda was deposited in the Malkhana. Relevant entry in the Register no. 19 and 21 revealed that only one pullinda was deposited and sent to the FSL. PW3 K.C.Varshney also deposed that only one pullinda sealed with the seal of "KPS" was received in the FSL. There is clear contradiction in the oral and the documentary evidence in this regard. In Satinder Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 69(1997) DLT577, it was held as under:
"that the oral evidence which is contrary to the documentary evidence ought not to be relied upon. Hence, in my considered opinion, this inordinate delay of almost one year in sending the case property to the FSL has proved fatal to the cause of the prosecution, especially so when there is no explanation has been put forth in this regard. As held by the aforesaid propositions of law I have no hesitation in holding that due to said reason the prosecution case becomes doubtful and consequently falls short of being proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Hence, in view of the aforementioned oral and the documentary evidence on the record especially considering the contradictions in the same I am not inclined to rely upon the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to travel the distance from may to must which is the golder principle of criminal jurisprudence before the accused can be convicted.
26 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, the accused Som Dutt @ Som acquitted of the offence under Section 25 FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.18/19 Arms Act, he has been charged with. He be set at liberty forthwith. His previous bail bonds and surety bond stand canceled and discharged respectively. Original documents, if any, lying on the record be returned to the previous surety after the cancellation of the endorsement, if any, against the acknowledgment. However, B/Bs furnished by the accused for the purpose of Section 437A Cr.P.C. shall remain extended for a period of six months from today. Case property be destroyed after the expiry of the period of the appeal. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (HEM RAJ)
TODAY i.e on 1 May, 2012ST
MM09:WEST:THC
01.05.2012.
.
FIR No. 533/2001 STATE V/s SOM DUTT @ SOM PAGE No.19/19