Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi Kumar on 9 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA YADAV
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE - 04 (SOUTH-WEST)
DWARKA COURT: DELHI
State Vs. : Ravi Kumar
FIR No. : 404/2018
U/s : 9B Explosive Act & 286/336 IPC
P. S. : Dwarka South
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW02-056591-2019
2. Date of commission of offence : 05.11.2018
3. Date of institution of the case : 06.11.2019
4. Name of the complainant : Ct. Sandeep Kumar
5. Name of accused, parentage &
address of accused : Ravi Kumar s/o.
Mahender Singh, R/o.
H.No.26, Village
Bagdola, Sector-8, New
Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 9B Explosives Act, 1884
& 286/336 IPC, 1860
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 09.01.2025
Argued by:- Mr. Amit Sehrawat, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. J.S. Dagar, Ld. Counsel for accused.
FIR No. 404/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Ravi Kumar Page 1 of 12
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX:
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 05.11.2018, at unknown time at Sikander, Puriya Haveli, Bagdola Village, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Dwarka South, the accused was found selling fire crackers without any valid license and his act was negligent so as to endanger the life and personal liberty of others. As such, it is alleged that the accused, Ravi Kumar has committed the offence punishable under section 336/286 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") read with Section 9(B) Explosive Act for which FIR No. 404/2018 was registered at the police station Dwarka South, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED:
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed. This court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, notice under section 336/286 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") read with Section 9(B) Explosive Act, 1884 was framed FIR No. 404/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Ravi Kumar Page 2 of 12 against the accused on 06.08.2022. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 HC Sandeep PW-2 ASI Shubh Ram DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW2/A Rukka Ex. A1 FIR Ex.A2 Complaint u/s. 195 Cr.P.C Ex.PW1/A Seizure memo Ex.PW2/B Site plan Ex.PW1/B Arrest memo Ex.PW2/C Disclosure statement ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A-1 FIR No.404/2018 alongwith certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.A-2 Complaint u/s. 195 Cr.P.C
4. PW-1 HC Sandeep, has deposed that on 05.11.2018, he was posted as Constable at PS Dwarka South. On that day, he alongwith ASI Shubh Ram were performing patrolling duty at village Bagdola, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi. While patrolling, at about 9 pm, when they reached at Mother Dairy, Sector-8 Dwarka, one secret informer met them and told them that one person was selling fire crackers without licence to the public. Thereafter, he alongwith ASI Shubhram and secret informer reached the spot and the secret informer pointed out towards one street and the accused that he was selling fire FIR No. 404/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Ravi Kumar Page 3 of 12 crackers without licence in the said street. He left the spot.
Thereafter, they entered in the said street and one saw one person sitting on the stool and one carton was lying alongwith him and on seeing the police official, he became perplexed and tried to fled away from the spot. PW1 and ASI Shubh Ram apprehended the accused and asked about the contents of the cartons but he failed to give any satisfactory reply. Thereafter, IO ASI Shubh Ram checked the same and it was found containing the following crackers:
i) 40 packets of Chunmun green sparklers (phooljhadi)
ii) 15 packets of big size of Chunmun green sparklers (phooljhadi)
iii) 60 packets of Timtim coloured sparklers
iv) 30 packets of cornation lamim chakkar
v) 10 packets of brown chakkari
vi) 35 packets of Chunmun red sparklers
vii) 8 packets of Durgesh brown chakkri
viii) 10 packets of star sparklers coloured
5. The samples were taken from each above mentioned category and they were marked as Mark A to H. Samples were weighed and it was about 900 grams. Remaining cartons were weighed about 22 kg and 800 grams. Samples were put in the white cloth and sealed with the seal of SR. remaining packets were put in carton and carton were also sealed with the seal of SR. Seal was handed over to him after use. IO prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and after getting FIR registered, he came back at the spot and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR No. 404/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Ravi Kumar Page 4 of 12 FIR to the IO. IO formally arrested the accused. Witness correctly identified the accused and the case property. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he has not made any departure entry in the rojnamcha before leaving the PS for patrolling. The accused was seen by them for the first time at about 10 pm. He does not know the date of Diwali of the year 2018. They were not having packing material with them. He does not remember the name of the shop from which the weighing machine was brought. Witness also denied that they did not weigh the fire crackers and that the accused was not selling the fire crackers and rather he was using the said fire crackers for his own personal use. He left the spot with tehrir at about 11 pm and returned to the spot at about 12:05 am. IO did not ask any public person to join the investigation in his presence. No notice was served upon the public persons by the IO. There was no shop/rehri near the spot. IO asked the accused to show the license if he had any regarding the fire crackers. Eight cartons were recovered from the accused.
Accused was arrested from the spot. He does not know whether IO recorded the statement of the accused at the spot. IO prepared the rukka, site plan and other documents in his presence at the spot but he does not remember the same. Witness has denied the suggestion that IO carried out all the investigation at the PS and no investigation was carried out at the spot in his presence. The case property was sealed in his presence with the seal of SR. He has signed the seizure memo. Witness denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the accused at the spot. Witness also denied the suggestion that case property was planted on the accused FIR No. 404/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Ravi Kumar Page 5 of 12 at the PS. Witness denied the suggestion that he was not present with the IO at the spot during investigation. He denied the suggestion that IO obtained his signatures on various documents at the PS.
6. PW2 ASI Shubhram has deposed that on 05.11.2018 he was posted as ASI at PS Dwarka South. On that day, he along with Ct. Sandeep were performing patrolling duty at village Bagdola, Sector 8, Dwarka, New Delhi. While patrolling at about 9.00 PM, when they reached Mother Dairy, Sector 8, Dwarka, one secret informer met them and told them that one person was selling fire crackers without license to the public. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Sandeep and secret informer reached at the spot and there secret informer pointed out towards one street and told them that person was selling fire crackers without license in the said street. He left the spot. Thereafter, they entered in the said street and saw one person sitting on the stool and one carton was lying along with him and on seeing them the became perplexed and tried to fled away from the spot. They apprehended him and asked about the contents of the cartons but he failed to give any satisfactory reply. Thereafter, he checked the same. It was found containing the following crackers.
(i) 40 packets of Chunmun green sparklers
(phooljhadi),
(ii) 15 pkts of big size of Chunmun green sparklers
(phooljhadi),
(iii) 60 pkts of Timtim coloured sparklers,
(iv) 30 pkts of Cornation lamim chakkar, FIR No. 404/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Ravi Kumar Page 6 of 12
(v) 10 pkts of brown chakkari,
(vi) 35 pkts of Chunmun red sparklers,
(vii) 8 pkts of Durgesh brown chakkari,
(viii) 10 pkts of STAR sparklers coloured.
The samples were taken from each above-mentioned category and they were marked as Mark A to H. Samples were weighed and it was about 900 grams. Remaining cartons were weighed about 22 Kg & 800 grams. Samples were put in the white cloth and sealed with the seal of SR. Remaining packets were put in carton and carton was also sealed with the seal of SR. Seal was handed over to him after use. He prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Sandeep for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and after getting FIR registered, Ct. Sandeep came back at the spot and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to him. He prepared the site plan. He formally arrested the accused. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet before the Hon'ble Court. Witness correctly identified the accused. Witness further deposed that the case property of the present case was destroyed on the order of the court vide order number 14206/AC-IV/SO-DCP/Dwarka dated 19.12.2018.
In his cross-examination, witness deposed that he had placed on record the list of prohibited crackers notified by the concerned authority. At this stage, witness is asked to trace out the said notification, if available on the judicial file.
After going through the file, witness could not find the same. He had not given any notice to join the investigation on any public person nearby spot. He had arrested accused from the FIR No. 404/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Ravi Kumar Page 7 of 12 street of Sikanderpuri Mohalla, Village Bagdola, Sec-8, Dwarka. Accused was sitting on the road. He had not clicked the photographs of the place where the accused was sitting. Witness denied the suggestion that the street in which the accused was sitting was not used by the vendors to run their business. No purchasers of the fire crackers were found near the accused. He had not clicked the photographs of the fire crackers, he seized at the spot. He had not recorded the statement of any public witnesses at the spot. He had mentioned the description of the fire crackers in the chargesheet. He prepared the site plan on 06.11.2018. No public person joined the investigation in the present case as a witness. He had obtained the signature of accused Ravi on the seizure memo. Witness admitted the suggestion that he is the complainant and the IO of the present case. He had informed the then SHO PS Dwarka South and he asked him to carry out the raid and to apprehend the accused. No written permission was granted to him by the SHO. They were only two persons at the spot who carried out all the investigation. Accused had told him during investigation that he purchased the fire crackers seized from him from village Bajgheda but did not provide the name and address of the said person. He did not know the address of the said person and therefore, he did not carry out any raid on the said person. He did not mention the information given by the secret informer in the rojnamcha. He did not place on record the departure entry vide which they were performing patrolling in village Bagdola. Witness denied the suggestion that no raid was carried out at the abovesaid spot and nothing was recovered from the accused and all the proceedings in the present case was carried out at the PS itself by him. He had FIR No. 404/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Ravi Kumar Page 8 of 12 packed the fire crackers recovered from accused in the carton of the accused. The witness admitted the suggestion that list of fire crackers seized in the present case is not mentioned in Ex. P1.
At this stage, the restriction order available on file is shown to the witness and asked whether the said order is complete order or not to which witness states that he had placed the order after obtaining the same from ACP office. He had weighed the fire crackers at the spot by taking weighing machine from the nearby shop. Witness admitted the suggestion that he has not made the said shopkeeper as a witness in the present case and that he did not carry out the investigation in fair and transparent manner and further that the fire crackers were planted on the accused. Witness admitted the suggestion that he has not given a public call with drum beats regarding the restriction on the selling of fire crackers.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
7. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded on 09.12.2024 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein he has stated that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further stated that he does not want to lead any defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS:
8. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration FIR No. 404/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Ravi Kumar Page 9 of 12 to the material appearing on record.
9. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
10. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE:
11. The accused has been charged for the offences under Section 9B Explosive Act & 286/336 IPC. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused did such an act so rash and negligent and to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to another person or knowingly or negligently ommits to take such order with an explosive substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from that substance and he does FIR No. 404/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Ravi Kumar Page 10 of 12 such an act so rash and negligent to endanger human life or personal safety of others and the accused has in contravention of rule made under Section 5 of the Explosives Act, 1884 manufactured, imported, exported, possessed, used, sold or transported any explosive. Further, the prosecution has to prove that the accused was not in possession of a valid driving license.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
12. In the instant case, the IO did not ask any public witness to join the investigation. No departure entry from the PS has been recorded by the IO. The IO has not placed any photographs of the case property nor he has placed any photographs or video wherein it can be seen that the recovery has been made at the instance of the accused. The list of fire-crackers seized in the present case have not been mentioned in the Ex. P1. The shopkeeper from whom the weighing machine was taken to weigh the case property has not been made a witness in the present case. Further, the accused was apprehended outside his home and there were no other shops/rehris nearby and no purchaser or buyer was found near the accused. It seems that the police officials are interested witnesses and despite the fact that the recovery was made in a public place, no efforts have been made by the police officials to join any independent witness in the investigation.
13. In the present case the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was in possession of any explosive substance in order to endanger human life and safety of others.
CONCLUSION FIR No. 404/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Ravi Kumar Page 11 of 12
14. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
15. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 9B Explosive Act & 286/336 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. There is no evidence to link the accused with the crime charged against him.
16. Resultantly, the accused, Ravi Kumar is hereby found not guilty and is hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 9B Explosive Act & 286/336 IPC.
Announced in the open court on 09.01.2025 in the presence of the accused.
(Divya Yadav) Judicial Magistrate (First Class)-04, Dwarka, Delhi/09.01.2025 Note:- This judgment contains 12 pages and each page has been signed by me.
FIR No. 404/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Ravi Kumar Page 12 of 12