Delhi District Court
State vs . Manni on 1 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH ANUJ KUMAR SINGH: MM03(SD)
SAKET COURT: DELHI
State Vs. Manni
FIR No. : 445/2017
U/S : 25 / 27 / 59 Arms Act
PS : Hauz Khas
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 02/03 dt. 01.02.2018
b) Date of institution of the case : 01.02.2018
c) Date of commission of offence : 04.12.2017
d) Name of the complainant : HC Amrish Tyagi
No. 16/SD, PS Hauz Khas.
e) Name & address of the : Manni S/o Sh. Ramphal,
accused R/o : B1001, Gautam Puri,
New Delhi.
f) Offence charged with : 25 / 27 / 59 Arms Act
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 01.08.2018.
i) Final order : Acquitted.
j) Date of Judgment : 01.08.2018.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, accused Manni has been sent to face trial with the allegations that on 04.12.2017 at about 1.35PM near NEFT college, Hauz Khas New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Hauz Khas, accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife in violation of notification no. F30/451/179 dt. 29.10.2980 and thereby committed offence u/s. 25 of Arms Act.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused 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, (04) four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
4. PW1 is HC Amrish Tyagi, who deposed as under :
" In the year 2017, I was posted at PS Hauz Khas as HC and on 04.12.2017, I received DD no. 22 A. At about 1.35 pm I alongwith Ct. Rajeev reached at NIFT College Hauz Khas where I found that mob of persons was gathered and accused present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) was having an knife in his hand which he was waiving and was screaming that I will not leave anybody and I will kill all. I alongwith Ct. Rajeev who were overpowered the accused and took knife from his possession and requested 23 public persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed and left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. Thereafter, I prepared a sketch map of knife which is Ex.PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. The knife was seized by seizure memo Ex.PW1/B bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, the knife was kept in pullanda and pullanda was sealed with the seal of AK. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Rajeev. Injury was found on thumb of leg of accused, accused was taken to AIIMS Trauma Center for treatment and thereafter, accused was taken to PS. I made my complaint regarding the incident which is Ex.PW1/C bearing my signature at point A. Witness correctly also identified the case property as Ex P1.
5. PW2 is HC Pawan Kuamr who deposed as under :
" That in the year 2017, I was posted at PS Hauz Khas as Head Constable. On 04.12.2017, the investigation of the present case was marked to me and during investigation, I prepared site plan Ex PW2/A bears my sign at point A. Accused was arrested and personal searched vide memo Ex PW2/B and Ex PW2/C, both bearing my signature at point A. I inquired about the incident from the person of the vicinity and joined Sh. Raman Deep as public witness and received bond from him which is Ex PW2/D which bears my signature at point A and after collecting relevant documents, charge sheet was filed before the Hon'ble Court."
6. PW3 is Sh. Ramandeep Singh, who deposed as under :
"I do not remember the exact date of the incident as I know it was the incident of 2017. On the date of incident accused Manni present in the court today and (correctly identified by the witness) was flying a buttendor knife at the Nift college. I have a restaurant near by the above said Nift College. Accused also loudly asked that I will not leave to anyone and at the time of incident accused was in drunken condition. At the same time, police officials came at the spot and interrogated from me. My statement was recorded by the IO.
7. PW4 is Ct. Rajeev, who deposed as under :
" In the year 2017, I was posted at PS Hauz Khas as Ct. and on 04.12.2017 at about 1.35 pm I alongwith HC Amrish Tyagi reached at NIFT College Hauz Khas where we found that mob of persons was gathered and accused present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) was having an knife in his hand which he was waiving and was screaming that I will not leave anybody and I will kill all. I alongwith HC Amrish overpowered the accused and took knife from his hand and HC Amrish requested 23 public persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed and left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. Thereafter, HC Amrish prepared a sketch map of knife which is already Ex.PW1/A bearing my signature at point B. The knife was seized by seizure memo already Ex.PW1/B bearing my signature at point B. Thereafter, the knife was kept in pullanda and pullanda was sealed with the seal of AK. Seal after use was handed to me. Injury was found on thumb of leg of accused, accused was taken to AIIMS Trauma Center for treatment and thereafter, accused was taken to PS. Witness correctly also identified the case property as Ex P1.
8. Vide separate statement recorded u/s. 294 CrPC on 27.04.2018, accused had admitted the document i.e. FIR which is Ex.A1. Hence the above document was ordered to be read in evidence without its formal proof.
9. PE was closed by order of this court on 30.07.2018 and thereafter, statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he has refuted the allegations leveled against him in toto. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence in his favour.
10. I have heard the arguments addressed by the both the parites and carefully perused the record.
11. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to 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.
12. As per the prosecution case, two documents i.e. sketch memo of the knife Ex.PW1/A and its seizure memo Ex.PW1/B 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.
13. 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 personally 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.
14. PW3 Ramandeep was examined as public witness. However, he was not made witness on any documents, creating doubt on his testimony and presence at the spot.
15. The conduct of accused as established by prosecution case lacks probability in view of absence of any proof regarding quarrel of accused with any person and in absence of any proof of accused being intoxicated.
16. 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 Manni stands acquitted of the offence Under Sec. 25 Arms Act. 1959 for which he has been charged with. Case property be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal. Ordered accordingly.
ANUJ Digitally signed
by ANUJ KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2018.08.01
SINGH 20:02:06 +0530
Announced in the open court (Anuj Kumar Singh)
on 01.08.2018 MM03(SD)/Saket / New Delhi