Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunil Kumar on 19 June, 2015
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER SINGH, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE02, NORTH DISTRICT, DELHI
STATE VS. Sunil Kumar
FIR No 241/01
P. S. S.P. Badli
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case : 37/3
Date of its institution : 14.06.2002
Name of the complainant : HC Naresh Kumar
Date of Commission of offence : 15.04.2001
Name of the accused : Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Tara Chand
R/o Village Munda Khera,
District Jhajjar, Haryana.
Offence complained of : U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Case reserved for orders : 01.06.2015
Date of judgment : 19.06.2015
Final Order : ACQUITTED
FIR No. 241/01
STATE VS. Sunil Kumar
Page 1/8
-: 2 :-
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the allegations of prosecution made against accused Sunil Kumar for offence U/s U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.04.2001 at about 5.30p.m. at near Telephone Exchange, Bawana Road, Samai Pur Badli, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS S.P. Badli, accused was apprehended by the police party and he was found in possession of country made Revolver (deshi katta) with two live cartridges, having total length of butt 8 cm, length of body 9.4 cm, and length of barrel 16.5 cm which he was carrying without any permit or license in contravention of notification of Delhi Administration and thus accused committed an offence punishable U/s 25 Arms Act. Other formalities were completed and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed for offence under Section 25 Arms Act against accused Sunil Kumar.
3. Cognizance was taken. Accused was summoned and after procuring the presence of accused the charge sheet alongwith FIR No. 241/01 STATE VS. Sunil Kumar Page 2/8 -: 3 :- documents was supplied to the accused and charge against the accused was framed for offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined seven witnesses.
5. PW1 HC Raghubir Singh, the duty officer and has proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A. He was not cross examined by the defence despite opportunity given.
6. PW2 HC Amarpal Singh was working as MHC(M) and he has proved the entry at Serial No. 3269 in register No.19 as Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that on 26.04.2001 the sample was sent to FSL Malviya Nagar vide RC No. 52/21 and on 11.06.2001, the FSL result was deposited in the malkhana. He was not cross examined by Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity given.
7. PW3 ASI Naresh Kumar and PW4 HC Mohd Yasin have reiterated the facts of the case of prosecution in their examination in chief. They proved on record the sketch of the country made revolver and live cartridge as Ex.PW3/A, seizure memo of katta and cartridges as Ex.PW3/B, site plan FIR No. 241/01 STATE VS. Sunil Kumar Page 3/8 -: 4 :- as Ex.PW3/C, rukka as Ex.PW3/D. They have also proved the disclosure statement of accused as Ex.PW3/E and arrest memo as Ex.PW3/F. They also identified the case property i.e. the Katta and live cartridge as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 & Ex.P3 respectively. They also duly identified the accused in the court. They were cross examined by Ld. defence counsel on the application U/s 311Cr.P.C.
8. PW5 Sh. Sunil Garg, Joint C.P. PHQ has proved the Sanction U/s 39 Arms Act 1959 as Ex.PW5/A.
9. PW6 HC Om Parkash has also deposed on the lines of the prosecution. He further deposed that he collected the sealed pullanda, FSL form from MHC(M) and deposited the same at FSL Malviya Nagar vide RC No. 53/21/1. He also proved on record the documents Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/F and the case property Ex.P1 to P3. He inter alia stated that the seal after use was handed over to him. He duly identified the accused in the court. He was not cross examined by defence despite opportunity given.
10. PW7 Sh. K.C. Varshney Deputy Director FSL Rohini has proved his report as Ex.PW7/A. He was duly cross examined FIR No. 241/01 STATE VS. Sunil Kumar Page 4/8 -: 5 :- by Ld. defence counsel.
11. This is the overall prosecution's evidence in this case.
12. After the prosecution's evidence was closed, accused was examined u/s 313Cr.PC wherein all incriminating evidence were put to the accused to which he pleaded his innocence.
13. Accused produced one witness namely Shawet Kumar in his defence who inter alia deposed that the police have falsely implicated the accused in the present case. According to him, he was driving truck No. HR 55A 6729 on 13.04.2001 and they were kept in illegal detention in PS Jahangir Puri. He was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State.
14. It has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution and the only irresistible conclusion is the conviction of the accused.
15. On the other hand, it has been argued by Ld. counsel on behalf of accused that prosecution is failed to prove any offence against the accused and the accused should be acquitted.
FIR No. 241/01STATE VS. Sunil Kumar Page 5/8 -: 6 :-
16. I have considered the rival contentions of both parties and gone through the judicial file.
17. To prove the offence against accused, the prosecution had to prove that the accused Sunil Kumar was found in possession of country made Revolver (deshi katta) with two live cartridges, having total length of butt 8 cm, length of body 9.4 cm, and length of barrel 16.5 cm which he was carrying without any permit or license in contravention of notification of Delhi Administration on 15.04.2001 at 5.30p.m at Telephone Exchange, Bawana Road, Samai Pur Badli, Delhi.
18. The prosecution is failed to produce any witness to prove the notification by which the possession of country made pistol as well as possession of live cartridges are prohibited in the GNCT of Delhi. This fact goes against the case of prosecution.
19. The PWs have nowhere deposed that before taking formal search of accused they offered their personal search to accused so that the chances of implanting country made pistol as well as live cartridges upon accused could be ruled FIR No. 241/01 STATE VS. Sunil Kumar Page 6/8 -: 7 :- out. This fact also goes against the case of prosecution.
20. That according to the prosecution witnesses the IO asked public persons to join the investigation but no one agreed to join the investigation and they left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. This stereo type statements of the police officials without any material action on their part to join the public person in the investigation of the case have been discarded by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments. The absence of giving any notice and the fact of not noting down the whereabouts of the public persons present at the spot raises a doubt on the versions of the prosecution specifically in view of the fact that according to accused he has been falsely implicated in the case.
21. That as per PW6 the seal after use was handed over to him. But no seal handing over memo is there on record. And even if the version of police be believed then also the seal remained with the police official, thus tampering with the case property in these circumstances can not be ruled out and it raises a doubt on fair investigation of the case.
FIR No. 241/01STATE VS. Sunil Kumar Page 7/8 -: 8 :-
22. Thus in view of aforementioned analysis of evidence, facts and circumstances, the prosecution is failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, benefit of doubt is given to accused Sunil Kumar. Hence, accused Sunil Kumar is acquitted for offence under section 25/54/59 Arms Act.
Announced in the open court On this 19st June, 2015 Virender Singh Metropolitan Magistrate02, North Rohini Delhi FIR No. 241/01 STATE VS. Sunil Kumar Page 8/8