Delhi District Court
Prosecution Weak And Suspicious. In ... vs . on 18 May, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH : MM
NEW DELHI
FIR no. 563/07
PS Malviya Nagar
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
State v. Prahlad Singh
JUDGMENT :
a. Sl. No. of the case : 115/3 b. Date of Institution : 17/07/2007
c. Date of Commission of Offence : 29/05/2007 d. Name of the complainant : Ct. Surender, No. 1707/SD e. Name of the accused and his : Prahlad Singh parentage and address S/o Sh. Madhav Prasad R/o H No.199, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, UP f. Offence complained of : U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act g. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty h. Order reserved : 18/05/2010 i. Final Order : Acquittal j. Date of such order : 18/05/2010 Brief reasons for the decision of the case.
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 29/05/2007 at about 09.50PM at T Point Som Bazar Road, Near Ganda Nala, SectorIV, Pushp Vihar N Delhi, Ct. Surender while on petrolling duty, saw the accused who on seeing him in uniform, took Uturn and tried to escape so on F.I.R. no. 563/07 Page no. 1 of 8 suspicion he apprehended the accused and got recovered one buttondar knife from his possession so he informed the P.S. through phone and thereafter H.Ct. Parvesh came there and recorded his statement and got the case FIR registered against the accused U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act in PS Malviya Nagar. Statement of witnesses were recorded, site plan was prepared, accused was arrested and after completion of all necessary investigation challan U/s 173 Cr.P.C was presented in the Court for trial.
2. Accused was summoned to face the trial, so copy of challan as required U/s 207 Cr. PC was supplied to him, thereafter case was fixed for consideration of charge.
3. After hearing arguments and on perusal of record, prima facie offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, was made out against the accused Prahlad. Charge was framed accordingly against the accused on 02/02/2009. Thereafter case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. Prosecution has produced and examined as many as three witnesses i.e, PW 1 Ct. Surender, PW 2 H.Ct. Parvesh Kumar and PW 3 H.C. Radhey Shyam.
5. PW 1 H.C. Surender testified that on 29/05/2007 at about 09.50PM at T Point Som Bazar Road, Near Ganda Nala, SectorIV, Pushp Vihar N Delhi while on petrolling duty he saw F.I.R. no. 563/07 Page no. 2 of 8 one person who on seeing him in uniform tried to escape so suspicion, he apprehended the accused. On casual search of accused, he found one buttondar knife was recovered from his right side pocket of pant. PW1 further testified that he sent information to P.S. and after sometime I.O. /H.Ct. Parvesh reached at the spot to whom he handed over the accused and recovered knife thereafter I.O. recorded his statement Ex. PW 1/A and prepared rukka and got the F.I.R. registered through him. PW1 further testified that he came back on the spot and handed over the copy of F.I.R. and rukka to the I.O. who prepared site plan on his instance. PW1 further testified that I.O. conducted the personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/B and seized the knife vide memo Ex. PW1/C and thereafter I.O. arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW1/D. PW1 had correctly identified the knife Ex.P1.
PW1 was cross examined by the Ld. APP for State as he resiled from his earlier statement. PW1 admitted that I.O. prepared the sketch of knife Ex. PW1/E and put the knife into pullanda which was sealed with the seal of PK. He further testified that accused was first arrested and thereafter his personal search was conducted.
6. PW 2 H.Ct. Parvesh, the I.O. of the case testified that on receipt of DD No. no. 25A, he went to the spot where Ct. Surender and accused who is present in the court found there and Ct. Surender handed over the accused and recovered buttondar knife to me. PW2 further testified that he requested F.I.R. no. 563/07 Page no. 3 of 8 45 public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. Thereafter he prepared sketch of knife Ex. PW1/E and put the knife into the pullanda which was sealed with the seal of PK and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW1/C. PW2 further testified that he prepared rukka Exh. PW2/A and got the case F.I.R. registered through Ct. Surender. He further testified that he prepared site plan Ex. PW2/B on the instance of Ct. Surender and arrested the accused and conducted the personal of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/D and PW1/B respectively. PW2 identified the knife Ex. P1.
In cross examination, PW2 denied the suggestion to the effect that nothing was recovered from accused and he was falsely implicated.
7. PW3 H.Ct. Radhey Shyam testified that on 29/05/2007, he recorded F.I.R. 563/07 Ex. PW3/A on receipt of rukka from Ct. Surender and put his endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW3/B.
8. Statement of accused Prahald Singh was recorded U/s 281 Cr.P.C wherein he has denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. However, accused did not prefer to lead any defence evidence.
9. I have heard the ld. APP for the State and ld counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the entire record and the relevant provisions of the law.
F.I.R. no. 563/07 Page no. 4 of 8
10. On careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence on record I find that no corroborative, consistent reliable and sufficient evidence to make up the edifice of the prosecution case has been produced by the prosecution. Moreover, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence.
11. It is the case of prosecution that accused was apprehended by the PW1 on suspicion while he was taking U turn after seeing PW1, and on his search a buttondar knife was recovered from possession of accused. Information was given to P.S. so PW 2 came on the spot and prepared the sketch of knife Ex. PW 1/E and seized the knife vide memo Ex. PW 1/C and after registration of case PW2 arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW 1/D.
12. Prosecution has examined one witness of recovery of buttondar knife from the possession of the accused i.e. PW1. The testimony of PW1 is not corroborated with the IO/PW2. PW 2 testified that pullanda of knife was sealed with the seal of PK and he seized the knife vide memo Ex. PW 1/C but PW1 has not deposed a single word about sealing of pullanda of knife by seal of PK. Further PW1 has not deposed about handing over of seal to him by PW2 whereas this fact was testified by PW 2 in his examinationinchief, thus there is material contradiction in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2. Hence this create doubt in the mind of court regarding recovery F.I.R. no. 563/07 Page no. 5 of 8 of buttondar knife at the above said place from the possession of accused.
13. During the investigation of the case neither public witnesses were joined nor seems to be any sincere efforts made in this regard, when it was possible to do as PW2 himself requested public persons to be witness of the proceedings present at the spot. So this makes the case of the prosecution weak and suspicious. In State of Punjab vs. Gurmel Singh 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reporters 361 Hon'ble Court held that : "Where there were 20 shops nearby and the investigating officer had ample opportunity to join independent witness statement of official witnesses would not be sufficient to convict the accused. Contention of the prosecution that the police officials had no ill will to involve the accused in false case was repelled.''
14. PW 2/HC Parvesh in his examination in chief have deposed that the knife was put into pullanda and it was sealed with the seal of PK by him but testimony PW1/Ct. Surender is totally silent on the point of sealing of pullanda of knife or handing of seal to him, even PW2 has not deposed whether the seal after use was given to him or not or any seal handing over memo or seal returning memo was prepared by him or not. Why such memos were not prepared, which constitutes a material link evidence. Such linking evidence is lacking in the prosecution case.
F.I.R. no. 563/07 Page no. 6 of 8
15. The perusal of the sketch of the knife Ex. PW 1/E and seizure memo Ex PW 1/C shows that FIR number is mentioned therein. There is not a single word in the testimony of PW 2 as to when and at what stage FIR number was inserted in Ex PW !/E and Ex PW 1/C. Moreover, the testimony of PW1 is also totally silent on this aspect. In these circumstances, either FIR was recorded posterior in time or that documents were prepared after the recording of FIR. In case Mohd Hasim Vs. State 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 569 (Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. A Siddiqui) it was observed that documents prepared before registering the FIR bears FIR numbers, meaning thereby either FIR was recorded posterior in time or that documents were prepared after the recording of FIR, and was hold that in both case, prosecution case would collapse.
16. In these circumstances, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence.
17. Apart from this, the presence of PW1 at the spot is not proved. If he had departed from PS for patrolling duty the entry to this effect must exist in the Roznamcha but that has not been proved, raising an adverse presumption against the prosecution U/s 114 (g) of the Evidence Act and if the said Roznamcha had been produced it would have not shown their departure at all.
F.I.R. no. 563/07 Page no. 7 of 8
18. It is true evidence it to be weighted and not counted but in this case whatever evidence has been produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to fortify the edifice of the prosecution case and th prosecution has failed to prove all the links, the benefit of doubt has been given to the accused. In view of this I am fortified with the observations made in the case State of Rajasthan Vs. Daulat Ram 1980 CAR 169 (SC) where it was held that prosecution failed to proved all the links. Accused was acquitted.
19. In view of the above, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused and he is given the benefit of doubt and therefore accused Prahlad Singh is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act for which he stands charged.
Announced in the Open Court
on 18/05/2010 (RAVINDER SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate:
New Delhi.
F.I.R. no. 563/07 Page no. 8 of 8