Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Wasi on 21 September, 2012
1 of 6
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMITABH RAWAT, MM08 (SE)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
STATE VS. MOHD. WASI
FIR NO. : 426/2001
P.S. : LAJPAT NAGAR
U.S. : 25/54/59 ARMS ACT
Date of institution of case : 30.07.2001
Date on which case reserved : 21.09.2012.
for judgment
Date of judgment : 21.09.2012.
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C
.:
a) Date of offence : 15.07.2001
b) Offence complained of : 25/54/59 Arms Act
c) Name of accused, his : Mohd. Wasi, S/o Mohd. Sammi
R/o H. No.2510, Chhota Chamman
Wara, Tilak Bazar, Lahori Gate,
Delhi.
d) Plea of accused : Not Guilty
e) Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE:
1.In brief the case of prosecution is that on 15.07.2001 at about 11.30 PM, in front of Capt. Gaur Marg, T Point near Radha Krishna Temple, Lajpat Nagar, within the jurisdiction of PS Lajpat Nagar, accused was found in possession of one State Vs. Mohd. Wasi FIR No.426/2007 PS Lajpat Nagar 2 of 6 buttondar knife having total length of 32.5 CM without any valid license and in contravention of notification of Delhi administration and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
2. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the court of Ld. Predecessor 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 27.08.2007 to which he pleaded not guilty & claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate its version, prosecution examined four witnesses in all.
4. PW1 HC Wazir Singh deposed that on 15/16.07.2001 he was posted at PP Garhi and he received message at his PP to reach at Capt. Gaur Marg, T Point, near Radha Krishan Mandir, East of Kailash, New Dehi where he met HC Surender Mohan, Ct. Ram Partap and Ct. Ram Partap handed over him the copy of FIR and original rukka and IO handed over him all the relevant documents and sealed case property and prepared site plan at the instance of HC Surender Mohan which is Ex.PW1/A and one scooter was also handed over to him and he prepared the seizure memo of scooter DLSH0284 vide Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that accused was not having valid license, hence, section 3/181 M.V. Act was added. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. The accused was medically examined.
5. PW2 ASI Surender Mohan deposed that on 15.07.2001 he was posted as P.S. State Vs. Mohd. Wasi FIR No.426/2007 PS Lajpat Nagar 3 of 6 Lajpat Nagar and he along with Ct. Ram Partap were present at Capt. Gaur Marg, Near Radha Krishan Mandir at 11.30 p.m. and were checking the vehicle and at the same time one scooter bearing No.DL6SH 284 came from the side of Sabzi Mandi who after seeing the police party tried to ran away and he was over powered and search conducted. One buttondar knife was recovered from left side of pant of accused. The sketch was prepared vide memo Ex.PW2/A seized vide memo Ex.PW2/B after sealing with the seal of 'SN' and seal given after use to Ct.Ram Pratap.
6. PW3 Ct. Ram Partap deposed as similar lines as PW2.
7. PW4 SI Prakash Singh deposed that on 16.07.2001 he was posted at P.S. Lajpat Nagar. His duty hours were from 12.00 mid night to 8.00 a.m. as Duty Officer. On that day I received a rukka brought by Ct. Ram Pratap which was sent by HC Surender Mohan. He made endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW4/A and FIR Ex.PW4/B.
8. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed as no other witness was left to be examined.
9. Accused was examined u/s 313 r/w section 281 Cr.PC and all the incriminating circumstances appearing on record against him were put to which he denied as false and incorrect and stated he was falsely implicated in this present case and he preferred not to lead evidence in his defence.
State Vs. Mohd. Wasi FIR No.426/2007 PS Lajpat Nagar 4 of 6
10. The main argument of Defence can be summarized as follows:
(1) The accused was falsely implicated in the case.
11. The main argument of Ld. Public Prosecutor can be summarized as follows:
(1) Sufficient materials are available on record to prove the guilt of accused. (2) Accused has not cross examined the prosecution witnesses hence their testimonies have remained unchallenged.
12. The court has heard the arguments of both sides 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 on the part of the prosecution to join public witnesses especially when they are available casts a doubt on the prosecution story. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as PREM SINGH VS. STATE, 1996 Crl. L.J. 3604, 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. This also creates State Vs. Mohd. Wasi FIR No.426/2007 PS Lajpat Nagar 5 of 6 a doubt upon the prosecution story. 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).
(4) It is also not on record to prove that the concerned IO had offered his personal search for effecting the search of the accused. In fact, PW3 stated that they had not offered their search before conducting 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 the knife is in doubt. The buttondar knife allegedly State Vs. Mohd. Wasi FIR No.426/2007 PS Lajpat Nagar 6 of 6 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 Mohd Wasi 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 (Amitabh Rawat) the Open Court on 21.09.2012. MM08/SouthEast Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi State Vs. Mohd. Wasi FIR No.426/2007 PS Lajpat Nagar