Delhi District Court
State vs . Girish on 1 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA, MM-08 (SE)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
STATE VS. GIRISH
FIR NO. : 119/07
P.S. : LAJPAT NAGAR
U.S. : 25/54/59 ARMS ACT
Unique ID No. 02403R0976922007
Serial No. 807/5/11
Date of institution of case : 10.05.2007
Date on which case reserved : 01.05.2012
for judgment
Date of judgment : 01.05.2012
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Date of offence : 03.02.2007
b) Offence complained of : 25/54/59 Arms Act
c) Name of accused, his : Girish
parentage & residence S/o Sh. Brij Lal
R/o H No. 15/6, Gyani House, Village-
Tehkhand, New Delhi
Permanent Address :- Village-Kina Pur,
PS-Ujhani, Distt.-
Badayun, U.P.
d) Plea of accused : Not Guilty
e) Final order : Acquitted
Counsels For the Parties:-
For the State : Sh. Mayank Tripathi
For the Accused : Sh. Suresh Kumar Tiwari
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE:
1.In brief the case of prosecution is that on 03.02.2007 at about 9 PM, near Ganda Nala Wall, South Delhi Polytechnic College, Vikram Vihar, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Lajpat Nagar, accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife having length of blade of 11 Cms and width of blade 2.5 Cms without any valid license and in FIR No. 119/07 State Vs. Girish PS LN 1/6 contravention of notification of Delhi administration and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act. Accused was arrested for being involved in a non-bailable offence. However, later on, he was released on bail by the Court order.
2. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused. Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused was summoned to face the trial for the offence allegedly committed by him. Charge for the offence punishable U/s. 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused on 28.04.2008, to which he pleaded not guilty & claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate its version, Prosecution filed the list of six witnesses, but examined only four witnesses in all.
4. PW1 HC Balraj deposed that on 03.02.07, at about 9 pm, while patrolling, he reached at South Delhi Women Polytechnic College, near the wall of Ganda Nala. There he saw one person coming from National Park side, who after seeing him tried to go back, which raised suspicion and he chased him and after running 30-35 paces, he managed to apprehend him. He further deposed that after apprehending the accused, he conducted his personal search and a buttondar knife was recovered from the right pocket of his pants. Thereafter, he informed at police post Amar Colony. On getting information, IO reached at the spot, to whom he handed over the accused and recovered knife. IO recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signatures at point A. IO also prepared the sketch of buttondar knife vide memo Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signatures at point A. Total length of the knife was found to be 24 cms, the handle of the knife was 13 cms and the blade was of 11 cms and the width of blade of knife was 2.5 cms. IO thereafter prepared the pulinda of the knife and prepared the seizure memo of the same vide Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signatures at point A. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by the IO vide Ex.
PW1/D, bearing his signatures at point A. Accused was arrested vide
FIR No. 119/07 State Vs. Girish PS LN 2/6
memo Ex. PW1/E, bearing his signatures at point A. Personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW1/F, bearing his signatures at point A. He also identified the accused and case property Ex. P-1.
5. During cross examination he deposed that there was no other persons except him and the accused at the spot at the time of recovery. He also deposed that IO was having the scale to measure the knife and all the documents were prepared at the spot. He signed his statement at the spot itself. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected from the possession of the accused and the knife was planted on the accused at the police station.
6. PW2 HC Dev Dutt, Duty Officer, proved the copy of FIR and his endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW2/A and B respectively, bearing his signatures at points A.
7. PW3 Sh. Satender Singh deposed that on 03.02.07 at 9.15 pm, he had lodged DD No. 29 regarding the recovery of illegal knife vide Ex. PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A. The accused was offered to put cross questions to the witness, to which he denied.
8. PW4 ASI Satbir Singh deposed to the line of PW1. In addition to that he also deposed that on the date of incident after receiving DD no. 29, he reached to the spot i.e. South Delhi Women Polytechnic College, near Vikram Vihar besides the wall of Ganda Nanal, where he met with Ct. Balraj Singh, who handed over the accused along with the illegal knife recovered from the accused. He interrogated the accused. He asked the public persons to join the investigation, but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. He also deposed that accused was got medically examined. The recovered knife was found in the violation of notification of Delhi Government, which is marked as mark A. He recorded the statements of witnesses U/s. 161 CrPC. Case property was deposited FIR No. 119/07 State Vs. Girish PS LN 3/6 in malkhana. After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the Court. He also proved rough sketch Ex.PW1/B of recovered knife, seizure memo Ex. PW1/C, statement of Ct. Balraj vide Ex. PW1/A, endorsement on rukka Ex. PW2/B, arrest memo and personal search vide Ex. PW1/E and F respectively, site plan Ex. PW4/A and disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW1/D. He correctly identified the accused and case property Ex. P-1. Accused was offered to put cross question to the witness, to which he denied.
9. During the trial accused did not dispute the genuineness of DAD notification and entries made in register no. 19. Hence, examination of concerned clerk and MHC(M) PS-Lajpat Nagar was dispensed with. The DAD notification was Mark 'A' Thereafter, Prosecution Evidence was closed as no other witness was left to be examined. Accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.PC and all the incriminating circumstances appearing on record against him were put to which he denied as false and incorrect however, he did not prefer to lead evidence in his defence.
10. Main arguments of Defence are:-
(1) Non Joinder of independent/public witnesses casts a serious doubt over the truthfulness of Prosecution story (2) Accused has been falsely implicated.
11. Main arguments of Prosecution are:-
(1) Sufficient materials are available on record to prove the guilt of accused.
(2) It is a matter of common understanding that people do not want to entangle themselves in police cases.
FIR No. 119/07 State Vs. Girish PS LN 4/6 (3) Defence taken by the accused is not proved. Accused has not brought anything on record to show that he was falsely implicated in the present case and that the knife was planted upon him. The testimony of main witness i.e. IO has remained unrebutted and unchallenged as accused did cross examine him despite opportunities given.
12.The court has heard the arguments of both side and also perused the entire record including the testimonies of witnesses. After appreciation of testimonies of witnesses as well as the material placed on record, the court is of the view that the charge framed against accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt for the following reasons:-
1. All Prosecution witnesses are police witnesses. Failure to join the Public witnesses especially when they are available casts a doubt on the prosecution story. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as PAWAN KUMAR VS. DELHI ADMN 1989 Crl. L.J. 127 (Delhi HC), NANAK CHAND VS. STATE OF DELHI, 1992 Crl. LJ 55 (Delhi HC).
2. No efforts were made to handover the seal to independent public persons after its use. The seal remained with the police officials only. The handing over of the seal to public witness has not been proved hence it cannot be ruled out that the opportunity to tamper with the case property was very much there as the seal remained within the possession of police officials. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as "Prem Singh Vs. State" reported as 1996 CRI. L. J/ 3604 in this respect.
(3) There is nothing on record to show at what time the police personnel proceeded for patrolling duty. Strangely none of the witness could tell as to what time they proceeded for such patrolling. No DD entries have been placed on record to establish the departure and arrival of the said police officials on patrolling. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as Pappu alias Irfan Vs State of UP,2005[1] JCC [Narcotics]31).
FIR No. 119/07 State Vs. Girish PS LN 5/6 (4) It is also not on record to prove that the concerned IO had offered his personal search before effecting the personal search of accused. The necessary inference can be easily drawn that the legal formality of search was not observed before recovery of the Knife from the accused.(Resham Singh Vs state,1981 CRI.LJ 1691) (5) No explanation has come from the prosecution that as to how the rukka and seizure memo bear the FIR number. The number of FIR given on the top of the aforesaid documents clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. It seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution story. (Lalji Shukla Vs State,2000(2)JCC424(Delhi).
(6) The identity of knife is doubtful. The buttondar knife allegedly recovered from the possession of accused was neither sent for chemical analysis nor fingerprints were lifted from the knife for the purpose of comparison by the expert. This makes the identity of knife doubtful (Bishnu Vs.State,1996 JCC 469).
13.In view of above discussions, Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to bring such material on record which would have gone to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt holding him guilty for the offence under section 25 Arms Act. As such accused is acquitted from the charge framed under section 25 Arms act.
14.File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
Announced & Dictated in (Mona Tardi Kerketta)
Open Court on 01.05.12 Metropolitan Magistrate-08 (SE)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
FIR No. 119/07 State Vs. Girish PS LN 6/6