Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajesh on 8 February, 2011
State Vs. Rajesh
FIR No. 264/96
PS Model Town
IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ GAUR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-IV ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR NO. 264/96
PS Model Town
U/S 25 Arms Act
C/N No. 631/03
Unique ID No. 02404R0049051996
State V/S Rajesh
Date of Institution: 02.11.1996
Date of commission of offence 12.06.1996
Name of the Complainant Suresh Singh Yadav S/o Sh.
Shankar Lal Yadav
Name and address of accused Rajesh S/o Sh. Ram Murat
R/o H-3/1495, Jahangirpuri
Delhi.
Offence complained of U/S 25 Arms Act
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Acquitted
Date of reserve for orders 08.02.2011
Date for announcing the orders 08.02.2011
C No. 918/02
Unique ID No. 02404R0077431998 Page No. 1
State Vs. Rajesh
FIR No. 264/96
PS Model Town
Brief reasons for the judgment:
Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the case FIR No. 264/96
1.The allegations against the accused are that the complainant namely Suresh Singh Yadav was the Conductor in a bus bearing No. DL 1P 2071 of route No. 100 and the accused was also travelling in the same bus. The complainant told the accused to come up from the gate of bus. Upon this, the accused started quarreling with the complainant and told him "Mai turjhe dekhta hun' and took out a buttondar knife from his wearing pent and thereafter, the complainant apprehended the accused with the help of other passengers. The length of the knife was 23 cms.
2. With these allegations, charge for offence punishable U/S 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused on 15.10.1997. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution cited 6 witnesses in the list of witnesses but could examine only 2 out of them. The complainant Suresh and eye witness Sunil remained untraceable. PE stood closed on 05.10.2010. Statement of accused was thereafter recorded U/S 313 CrPC on 31.01.2011 wherein he pleaded his innocence. He did not prefer to lead defence evidence. Final arguments have been heard. Record has been carefully perused.
4. Now, I shall briefly touch upon the statement of witnesses.
C No. 918/02 Unique ID No. 02404R0077431998 Page No. 2State Vs. Rajesh FIR No. 264/96 PS Model Town
5. PW-1 Ct. Bir Singh deposed that on 12.06.1996, the complainant brought the accused in the police station Model Town. SI Suresh recorded the statement of complainant and prepared the sketch of knife and took the same into possession. They got the accused medically examined. The accused was arrested and personally searched and thereafter the complainant was got joined in investigation and the site plan was prepared at his instance. PW-1 correctly identified case property in the Court.
6. PW-2 Inspector Suresh Kumar deposed that on 12.06.1996 the driver and conductor of bus lying on the route No. 100 and other public persons brought the accused in the PS. The name of the conductor was Suresh Singh Yadav and the name of the driver was Sunil Kumar. The complainant handed over a buttondar knife which was recovered by them from the possession of accused. Sketch of knife is Ex. PW 2/A. The total length of knife was 23 cms. Pullanda of knife was prepared and same was sealed with the seal of SK and the same was seized vide memo Ex. PW 2/B. Rukka is Ex. PW 2/C. The accused was sent to HRH through Ct. Bir Singh for medical examination. Thereafter, he went to the spot. Site plan is Ex. PW 2/D. Arrest and personal search memo is Ex. PW 2/E. PW-2 correctly identified the accused and case property in the court.
7. It is noteworthy and can never be ignored to arrive at any justified decision and surely weakens the prosecution case that despite C No. 918/02 Unique ID No. 02404R0077431998 Page No. 3 State Vs. Rajesh FIR No. 264/96 PS Model Town several opportunities prosecution failed to examine the complainant Suresh Kumar Yadav and eye witness Sunil. Complainant Suresh and eye witness Sunil remained untraceable. Even the summons were ordered to be served through DCP North West but of no consequence. There is no evidence on record to show that a buttondar knife was recovered from the possession of accused. The evidence available on record is highly insufficient to record a finding of guilt against the accused and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge U/S 25 Arms Act for want of evidence. For want of evidence, accused Rajesh is acquitted for the offences U/S 25 Arms Act.
8. The Bail Bond stands cancelled and surety for the accused stands discharged. Any endorsement placed on the documents of the surety may accordingly, be cancelled. The original documents of the surety, if retained on record be returned against acknowledgment. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Neeraj Gaur)
Dated 08.02.2011 Metropolitan Magistrate-IV
Rohini Courts, Delhi
C No. 918/02
Unique ID No. 02404R0077431998 Page No. 4