Delhi District Court
State vs . Veer Singh on 26 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL VERMA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 488/2021
PS - Sunlight Colony
U/s - 25 Arms Act
State Vs. Veer Singh
JUDGMENT
Part A - The list at a glance A. Serial No. of the Case : 8364/2021 B. Date of Commission of offence : 02.11.2021 C. Date of Institution of Case : 24.11.2021 D. Name of the Complainant : Ct. Hari Ram No. 1790/SE E. Name of Accused : Veer Singh S/o Shri Bal Kishan R/o House No. Mannu Ka Makaan, near MCD School, Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi Permanent address Rainpur, near Talab, PS Charkhaa District Mohaba, UP.
F. Offence charged of : 25 Arms Act G. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty H. Final Order : Acquitted I. Judgment reserved on : 25.04.2023 J. Date of judgment : 26.04.2023 State Vs. Veer Singh, FIR No.488/21 PS Sunlight Colony Page No. 1 of 7
Part B - A brief statement of reasons for the decision (As mandated u/s 355(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.)
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 02.11.2021 at about 06.00 PM at Railway Road, near Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Sunlight Colony, accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife in contravention of provisions of Arms Act and DAD Notification No. F/13/451/79 (Home) (G) dated 29.10.1980, without any permit or license, and thereby he committed offence punishable u/s. 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet qua the accused was filed under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959. Documents were furnished to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). On the basis of material on record, charge under Section 25 Arms Act was framed upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined following witnesses:
(i) PW1 Ct. Hari Ram deposed that on 02.11.2021 at about 06.00 PM near Sarai Kale Khan, Metro Station, he apprehended one person coming from red light on suspicion, from whose possession one buttondar knife was recovered. He identified his signatures on sketch memo of the knife Ex. PW 1/A, seizure memo of the knife Ex. PW1/B, his statement recorded by IO Ex. PW1/C, site plan Ex. PW1/D, arrest memo Ex. PW1/E, personal search memo Ex. PW1/F. He correctly identified the accused. He correctly identified the case property ie buttondar knife Ex. P1. This witness was duly cross examined by the LAC for the accused. Prosecution further examined PW2 Ct. Deepak Chaudhary who deposed that on 02.11.2021 he was on duty with HC Lakhma Ram. He further deposed that after the registration of State Vs. Veer Singh, FIR No.488/21 PS Sunlight Colony Page No. 2 of 7 the FIR, he alongwith HC Lakhma Ram and Ct. Narender went to the spot where they met HC Pawan and the accused. He identified his signatures on arrest memo Ex. PW1/E, personal search memo Ex. PW1/F. He correctly identified the accused. This witness was duly cross examined by the LAC for the accused. Prosecution further examined PW3 Ct. Narender who deposed that on 02.11.2021 after receiving the DD No. 66A he alongwith HC Pawan went to the spot where they met Ct. Hari Ram and the accused.
He further deposed that Ct. Hari Ram handed over the custody of knife and accused to HC Pawan. He identified his signatures on sketch memo of knife Ex. PW1/A, seizure memo of buttondar knife Ex. PW1/B. He correctly identified the accused, case property ie knife Ex. P1. This witness was duly cross examined by the LAC for the accused. Prosecution further examined PW4 HC Lakhma who was the IO in the present case. He deposed about various stages of investigation conducted by him. He correctly identified the accused. Prosecution further examined PW5 HC Pawan Kumar who deposed that after receipt of DD No. 66A, he alongwith Ct. Narender went to the spot where they met Ct. Hari Ram and the accused. He identified his signatures on sketch memo Ex. PW1/A, seizure memo of buttondar knife Ex PW1/B, tehrir Ex. PW5/A. He correctly identified the accused, case property ie knife Ex. P1. This witness was duly cross examined by the LAC for the accused.
4. Vide a separate statement dated 06.06.2022 the accused admitted the genuineness of following documents, which were also exhibited as under :
(i) FIR (without contents) with certificate u/s.65B IEA Ex. PA1.
(ii) DAD Notification dated 29.10.1980 Ex. PA2.
(iii) GD No. 86A Ex. PA3.
State Vs. Veer Singh, FIR No.488/21 PS Sunlight Colony Page No. 3 of 7
5. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 28.03.2023.
6. Statement of accused u/s. 313 r/w 281 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 28.03.2023 wherein the accused denied the incriminating evidences appearing against him. The accused did not opt to lead defence evidence.
7. Subsequently, final arguments from the counsel for accused and Ld. APP for the State were heard.
8. In the instant case, it has been alleged by the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of one button operated knife. In order to prove this allegation, the prosecution examined 05 police witnesses. However, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. All police witnesses admitted about the presence of public persons on the spot but deposed that the said public persons did not join the investigation. No explanation has come forth from the prosecution for nonjoining of public witnesses except a vague excuse that public witnesses were asked to join the investigation but none joined the same. Neither the names of such witnesses have been recorded nor any effort has been made to proceed against them under the relevant provisions of law for declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation. It appears that no sincere efforts were made by the police to join public witnesses. This leads to an adverse inference against the entire recovery. It must be noted that the recovery, arrest and search before an independent witness imparts authenticity and creditworthiness to the proceedings carried out by the police authorities. In the absence of any independent witness having been joined in the investigation, possibility of false implication of the accused by the police in the present case cannot be ruled out. Reliance is placed in this regard on the judgment of Roop Chand v. State of Haryana, 1999 (1)C.L.R 69, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana that:
"4. ...It is well settled principle of the law that the investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of State Vs. Veer Singh, FIR No.488/21 PS Sunlight Colony Page No. 4 of 7 contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non−joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".
9. Considering the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble High Court, it is clear that the omissions/ failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses raises doubt on the prosecution story.
10. Further doubts arise on the prosecution story considering that the police personnel who apprehended the accused, did not bring on record any documentary evidence or the DD entries to prove their departure and arrival time so as to show that they were indeed on duty in the area in question at the relevant time. In this regard, it is pertinent to take note of Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which provides as under:
22.49. Matters to be entered in Register No. II The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered :
(c) 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.
This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter State Vs. Veer Singh, FIR No.488/21 PS Sunlight Colony Page No. 5 of 7 personally by signature or seal.
Note. The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained.
11. In the present case, the prosecution has not proved the compliance of the above said provision as the DD entry vide which all the police personnel had left and arrived at the PS has not been brought on record. In Rattan Lal v. State, (1987) 32 DLT 1, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that:
"If the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive."
12. Since the public persons in the present case were not joined in the investigation, the departure and the arrival entries of the police officials who apprehended the accused with the case property while on patrolling duty becomes a vital piece of evidence. However, the absence of departure and arrival entries raises suspicion on the very presence of police personnel on the spot.
13. Here, several discrepancies and inconsistencies apparent from the record must also be noted. As per the testimony of witnesses, sketch memo of buttondar knife Ex. PW1/A and seizure memo of knife Ex. PW1/B were prepared before the registration of FIR. Clearly, these documents could not have borne the FIR number if the same were truly prepared before the registration of FIR. However, since both these documents bear the FIR number, it raises suspicion on the prosecution story. These discrepancies raise serious doubts on the prosecution story and the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the prosecution. Hence the possibility of documents having been prepared later on in the Police Station and the possibility of planting of the alleged buttondar knife upon the accused cannot be ruled out.
14. Here, it would be beneficial to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme State Vs. Veer Singh, FIR No.488/21 PS Sunlight Colony Page No. 6 of 7 Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, wherein it was observed that "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." Again, in Jagdish Prasad vs State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi), (2011) 184 DLT 285, the Hon'ble High of Delhi had observed that "it is well settled that in a criminal case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution is required to establish the guilt beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. If, on consideration of the prosecution evidence, a reasonable doubt remains in respect of culpability of the accused, he is entitled to benefit of doubt."
15. In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Veer Singh is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act. Digitally signed Announced in open RAHUL by RAHUL VERMA VERMA Date:
court on 26.04.2023 2023.04.26 14:25:19 +0530 (RAHUL VERMA) Metropolitan Magistrate07, South East, Saket, New Delhi State Vs. Veer Singh, FIR No.488/21 PS Sunlight Colony Page No. 7 of 7