Delhi District Court
Fir No.37/05 State vs Rajneesh @ Bablu 1/4 on 2 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. GOMATI MANOCHA, LD MM-04,
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 37/05
P.S : Sangam Vihar
Date of commission of offence : 14.01.2005
Date of institution of challan : 26.02.2005
Name of complainant : SIBraham Prakash
Name of accused Rajneesh @ Bablu
S/o Sunahari Lal
R/o 18/229,
Kalyanpuri
New Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not Guilty.
Arguments heard/ order reserved : 02.02.2013
Final order : Acquitted.
Date of such order : 02.02.2013
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.01.2005, SI Braham Prakash along with Ct. Anil, Ct Vijender, Ct Hawa Singh and Ct Manmohan were on patrolling duty in the area of Vir Bazar Chowk, Sangam Vihar. At about 09.15 pm, they met a secret informer who informed them that a person was carrying an illegal knife with him. On the basis of the secret information, the accused FIR no.37/05 State vs Rajneesh @ Bablu 1/4 was apprehended. On search, one button actuated knife was recovered from the right side pocket of the wearing pants of the accused. After following appropriate procedure and registration of FIR, the accused was arrested.
2. On the conclusion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed and copy was supplied to the accused. Charge was framed against the accused person u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. It order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined only two witness despite several opportunities.
4. PW-1 HC Laxmi Narain, Duty Officer proved the registration of FIR Ex PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka Ex PW1/B.
5. PW-2 Ct. Anil reiterated the prosecution story. He further deposed that they had requested some public persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed. IO opened the knife and prepared the sketch of the said knife Ex PW2/A. IO measured the said knife and prepared pullanda of the said knife and seized the same with the seal of BPP and seized vide memo Ex PW2/C. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Hawa Singh Ex PW2/B. IO prepared the rukka and got the case FIR registered through him. After the registration of the FIR, he along with HC Mahinder Singh came back to the spot. He further deposed that 1st IO handed over the accused, case property and relevant documents to the 2nd IO. IO arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex PW1/D & E. At this stage, the MHC(M) has produced the case property with seal of BPP, the seal is broken with the permission of the court.
FIR no.37/05 State vs Rajneesh @ Bablu 2/4 One button actuated knife is taken out and shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the case property. Case property is Ex P1.
6. Thereafter, PE was closed. In the statement of the accused, the accused denied all the incriminating evidence submitting that no recovery was made from him. He claimed innocence submitting that he was falsely implicated in this case.
7. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and the accused and perused the record carefully.
8. In this case, no public witness has been joined in the investigation. The testimony of official witness does not find corroboration from any independent source. In my view, the non-joining of public witness is fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when no reasonable explanation has been given by the prosecution for non joining of public witnesses. In the case of Chanan Singh Vs. State 1986 Crl. Rev. No.720 (P&H) 94, it was held that it was obligatory on the part of the police to join independent witnesses and the statement of official witness that witnesses refused to join investigation was rejected as an afterthought.
9. Also, the search of the accused person was also not done in a proper manner and without first doing the personal search of police official. The same is accordingly violative of the mandatory provision of personal search, keeping in view the interest of the witness in successful completion of the case in favour of the prosecution. Hence, the possibility of planting the weapon can not be completely ruled out.
10. The prosecution has also failed to prove the Sanction u/s 39 of the FIR no.37/05 State vs Rajneesh @ Bablu 3/4 Arms Act which is mandatory.
11. In these circumstances, there is reasonable doubt of the knife having been recovered from the possession of the accused. It being so, benefit of same is given to the accused. Hence, the accused Rajneesh @ Bablu is acquitted of the charge u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. Case property be confiscated to the State and be destroyed after expiry of period of appeal. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. Surety is discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to the surety after cancellation of endorsement. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the (GOMATI MANOCHA) Open Court on 02.02.2013 MM-04/ South East District
It is certified that this judgment contains four pages and each page bears my signature.
(GOMATI MANOCHA)
MM-04/ South East District
FIR no.37/05 State vs Rajneesh @ Bablu 4/4