Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Criminal Case/696/1997 on 13 September, 2011

         IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR LAKA
                METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 
              DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
                                               F.I.R. No.  696/97
                                       Police Station: Najafgarh
                                Under Section 25// Arms Act
(a) Serial number of the case      : 02403RO282032003

(b) Date of commission of the                       : 06.11.1997
    offence
(c) The name of the complainant                     : SI   Manmohan   Singh, 
                                                      Police   Station   Najafgarh, 
                                                      Delhi.

(d) The name of the accused                         : Ashok @ Kala @ Pawanjeet 
    persons/s his parentage and                       S/o   Indraj   R/o   F­18, 
    residence                                         Dharampura,   Najafgarh, 
                                                      Delhi.  
(e) The offence complained of or                    : Under Section  25/54/59 
    proved                                            Arms Act
(f) The plea of the accused                         : Pleaded not guilty

(g) The final order                                 : Acquitted

(h) The date of such order                          : 13.09.2011

(i) In all cases in which an appeal                : A   brief   statement   of   the 
    lies                                             reason for the decision as 
                                                     follows:
                                       Police case was instituted on: 27.01.1999
                                Final arguments were advanced on: 13.09.2011
                                        Judgment is announced on: 13.09.2011

JUDGMENT

Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 06.11.1997 at about 07.30 pm at Paprawat Road, opposite burial ground, Najafgarh, New Delhi accused was found in possession of a katta without any license or permit.

2. On appearance of the accused person, a charge for the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined following witnesses :­ PW­1 Ct. Prem Chand;

PW­2 HC Dharamvir;

PW­3 Sh. Ravinder Jain;

PW­4 HC Jagir Singh.

4. Statement of accused Ashok was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused examined himself as DW1.

5. I have heard Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. File perused.

DEPOSITION OF PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES

6. The prosecution examined total four witnesses. PW1 Ct. Prem Chand deposed that on 06.11.97 he was posted at PS Najafgarh and on that day he along with SI Manmohan and HC Dharamvir were present at Jawahar Chowk in respect of the investigation of case FIR no. 693/97 PS Najafgarh. In the meantime, at about 07.00 pm, one Ravinder Kumar Jain, complainant in case FIR No. 693/97 met him and they all went to Delhi Gate in Najafgarh. He further stated that one secret informer met them and informed that Ashok, Pawan and Rameshwar @ Khurpa are present at Paprawat Road, Najafgarh and they are wanted in case FIR no. 693/97. He stated that he proceeded for Paprawat Road and when they reached at Chawla FIR No. 696/97 PS Najafgarh Page 2/ 6 Bus Stand, HC Dharampal met them along with some RAC police officials and they all except RAC police official went to Paprawat Road and the complainant Ravinder Jain pointed out towards the accused persons. All the three accused persons were apprehended. On the cursory search of accused Ashok (who was present in the court), one country made pistol was recovered from the right side dub of his pant. Sketch of the pistol was seized which was proved as Ex PW 1/B and sealed with the seal of MMS. Seal was handed over to HC Dharampal. FSL form was prepared on the spot. He further deposed that the rukka was prepared by the IO and the same was got registered by HC Dharambir. Accused was arrested and his personal search was carried out. IO recorded his statement. He also deposed about arrest and personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/C. He also correctly identified the case property and the accused in the open court.

7. PW­2 HC Dharamvir corroborated the statement of PW­1 and deposed in the same lines as regards apprehension of accused in possession of a pistol. He also deposed about the investigation proceedings conducted in his presence at the spot on the day of incident alongwith PW­1. He also stated that he took the rukka prepared by SI Manmohan Singh to police station and got the present case registered.

8. PW­3 Sh. Ravinder Jain deposed that on 06.11.97, some police officials came to his shop to join the investigation of the case FIR No. 693/97 PS Najafgarh. He stated that he was the complainant of that case. He along with the said police officials went to Delhi Gate side, Najafgarh. From the said place, he along FIR No. 696/97 PS Najafgarh Page 3/ 6 with police officials went to Chhawla Bus Stand where one police official also met him and he was also asked to join the investigation by the police as there was an information that accused persons are present at Paprawat Road. They all went to Paprawat Road where they found three persons standing in front of Shamshan Ghat, Najafgarh. He pointed out the accused to and at his instance, all the three accused persons were arrested. On cursory search of accused Ashok Kumar, one country made pistol was recovered from his possession. IO recorded his statement.

9. PW­4 HC Jagir Singh deposed that on 06.11.97 he was posted at PS Najafgarh as Duty Officer and on that day he received a rukka through HC Dharambir sent by SI Manmohan Singh, on the basis of which he recorded the present FIR which was in his handwriting and was bearing his signature. Copy of the FIR was proved as Ex PW 4/A. He further deposed that after recording the FIR, he handed over the same to the said Constable for handing over the same to the IO.

DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED

10. In the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused denied the fact of recovery of pistol from his possession on the relevant date, time and place. He also stated that the present case is false and he was already acquitted by the Sessions Court in the main case which was filed before Sessions Court. He also stated that he did not know as to why prosecution witnesses deposed against him. Accused also preferred to lead defence evidence and examined himself as DW­1.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS

11. In the list of witnesses, the prosecution cited total nine witnesses. Despite giving ample opportunities, prosecution examine only four of them. PW­1, PW­2 and PW­3 deposed about the apprehension of accused in possession of a pistol and corroborated the statement of each other. PW­4 merely deposed about registration of the present case being the Duty Officer posted at police station on the day of the incident. It is the case of the prosecution that the place of incident at situated at main gate of Shamshan Ghat. At the said place, the presence of chowkidaar or pandit at Shamshan Ghat cannot be disputed. Under these circumstances, the prosecution could have made the said chowkidaar or pandit witness of recovery of alleged pistol from the possession of accused. As such, I am of the opinion that case of the prosecution is doubtful on this account. From the nature of the weapon, it is clear that the pistol is a country made one and keeping in view the defence raised by accused, false plantation of the said pistol cannot completely ruled out.

12. The accused examined himself as DW­1 in his defence and deposed that complainant used to do illegal business of lottery and son of accused was arrested by special staff on the basis of information of one Pawan four months prior to the present incident. Thereafter, complainant falsely implicated the accused and Pawan due to enmity in connivance with the police as accused was the BC of the area.

13. Accused also gave a trustworthy explanation that he was falsely implicated in the present case as he gave some FIR No. 696/97 PS Najafgarh Page 5/ 6 information to the special staff about the son of complainant against his illegal business of sattebazi/running of lottery. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

14. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, AIR 1999 SC 2005, the hon'ble Supreme Court illustrated the doctrine of benefit of doubt in the words ­ "The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused."

15. Keeping in view the aforesaid evidence on record and entire evidence on record, I hold that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act against accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accused Ashok is accordingly acquitted for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open court On 13.09.2011 (Naresh Kumar Laka) Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka District Courts FIR No. 696/97 PS Najafgarh Page 6/ 6