Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu on 5 June, 2012
State Vs Sonu
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SOUTH EAST-03, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Sonu
FIR NO: 314/07
P. S. Kalkaji
ID no. 02403R0459582007
Date of institution of case : 06.07.2007
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 05.06.2012
Date of judgment : 05.06.2012
Advocates appearing in the case :
Sh. Manish Kumar, Ld. APP for State
Sh. M C Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused.
JUDGEMENT U/s 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Date of offence : 09.04.2007
b) Offence complained of : U/s 25 Arms Act
c) Name of complainant : Ct. Vinay Kumar.
d) Name of accused, his parentage, : Sonu
local & permanent residence S/o Sh. Basanta
R/o B-84, Transit Camp, Govindpuri, Kalkaji
New Delhi.
Also At
House no. 25, Dayalpur, 33 ft. road,
Bhajanpura, New Delhi
e) Plea of accused : He is falsely implicated.
f) Final order : He is acquitted
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. In the present case, accused Sonu S/o Sh. Basanta has been charged for offence u/s 25 Arms for recovery of one button dar knife without any license at public place in FIR No. 341/07 Page no. 1 of 4 State Vs Sonu contravention of Section 25 Arms Act , on 09.04.2007 at about 09.35 PM at Okhla Service Road, Near Mother Dairy, Pocket A-8, Kalkaji Extn., New Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Kalkaji. Prosecution has examined two PWs on its behalf.
2. PW-1 is HC. Ved Prakash who stated that he was on patrolling duty on 09.04.2007 with Ct. Vinay and when they reached near Aggarwal Sweets, A-8 Pocket, Kalkaji Extn., they saw that one person was coming from Okhla Gol Chakkar side and after seeing the police party, they started moving fastly. On suspicion they apprehended the accused after chasing 15-20 steps and conducted the search of the accused and found one buttandar knife from his right side pocket of wearing pant. He informed PP Govindpuri and HC Ombir Singh came at the spot. They handed over the accused Sonu along with recovered case property in unseal conditions to HC Ombir Singh. IO seized the button dar knife and sealed with seal of 'OBS' and prepared seizure memo Ex PW 1/B after preparing sketch which is Ex. PW 1/A and site plan Ex. PW 2/B and arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW 1/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW 1/D. PW-2 IO HC Ombir Singh who conducted investigation and arrested accused and prepared site plan which is Ex.PW2/B. (Both witnesses correctly identified accused in Court and case property and exhibited as Ex. P-1.)
3. After closure of PE, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused did not lead any defence evidence, hence final arguments were heard today and case was kept for order for today itself.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF.
FIR No. 341/07 Page no. 2 of 4
State Vs Sonu
After hearing final arguments and after perusal of case file, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. Neither the case property has been brought in court nor identified by any witness. Moreover, all the PWs have failed to give satisfactory reply why public persons were not made witness to the recovery of the weapon though the purported time of arrest of accused and there were many public persons going to and fro at Okhla Service Road. They did not serve any notice to public persons to become party to the recovery. All this leads to reasonable doubt that recovery may not have been made at the spot as stated in prosecution case or recovery may not have been made from accused at all.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in case of Azim Khan Vs. State 1996 Crl.C.J. 3140 that recovery of case property at a crowded place like bus stand without making public persons as witnesses to recovery raises serious doubt on the very fact of recovery, hence in this case, the accused was acquitted on this ground of failure of police officials to make public persons as necessary witnesses to the recovery. In a similar case of recovery of opium from accused at a bus stand where no public witnesses were joined in the recovery, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled Darshan Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1997 (3)RCR (Crm) 496 set aside the conviction of accused.
The omission to make public persons as witness of recovery further creates a reasonable suspicion upon the working of the police officials, whether the knife was recovered from accused at the said place at all or not. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and has failed to plug all the gaps in the story of prosecution and FIR No. 341/07 Page no. 3 of 4 State Vs Sonu has left many doubts regarding recovery of knife from the possession of accused. Hence, the benefit of doubt in this case is granted to accused. Accused stands acquitted from charge u/s 25 Arms Act on benefit of doubt. Original documents if any be released to the authorized persons on proper receipt and endorsement if any be canceled. Case property be destroyed and report be filed. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH ) TODAY ON 05th June 2012 MM-03(SE), NEW DELHI FIR No. 341/07 Page no. 4 of 4