Delhi District Court
Fir No. 114/98 Ps Rajouri Garden State vs . Om Pal Singh Page No.1 Of 6 on 21 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR LAKA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
F.I.R. No. 114/98
Police Station: Rajouri Garden
under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act
(a) ID number of the case : 0201R0156602002
(b) Date of commission of the : 27.02.1998
offence
(c) The name of the complainant : SI Ram Kumar Man
(d) The name of the accused : Om Pal Singh, S/o Sh.
person, his parentage and Harish Chand, R/o Beem
residence Pura Khurd, PS Amapur, Dist.
Etah, U.P.
(e) The offence complained of : Under Section 25/54/59 of
Arms Act.
(f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) The final order : Acquitted
(h) The date of such order : 21.07.2012
(i) In all cases in which an : A brief statement of the
appeal lies reason for the decision as
follows:
Police case was instituted on: 16.04.1998
Final arguments were not addressed
Judgment is announced on: 21.07.2012
FIR No. 114/98 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Om Pal Singh Page no.1 of 6
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts: It is the case of prosecution that on 27.02.1998 at about 03:10 p.m. at Circus Ground, Raja Garden, Delhi, accused the accused was found in possession of a buttondar knife without any permit or license. After investigation of the case, the present challan was filed for commission of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. On appearance of the accused person, a charge for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined only two witnesses. As there was no sufficient incriminating evidence, the statement of the accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
3. I have heard Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the file.
DEPOSITION OF PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES
4. PW1 Ct. Arun Kumar and PW2 HC Kapoor Singh are the police official. On 27.02.1998 they alongwith SI Ram Kumar were on petrolling duty. PW1 and PW2 deposed that when they FIR No. 114/98 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Om Pal Singh Page no.2 of 6 reached at Raja Garden bus terminal a secret informer informed that a person having a knife is standing in circus ground. On this information 4-5 passersby were requested to join the investigation but they refused and left the spot without telling their names and addresses. Therefore, a raiding team consisting 10 police officials was formed. At the instance of secret informer raiding team reached at circus ground. On seeing police accused tried to escape and started running but he fell down after some distance. He was chased and caught and one buttondar knife was recovered from the right side pocket. PW1 and PW2 further deposed that IO carried out all the proceedings in his presence and prepared sketch of knife Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, knife was wrapped into a pulanda of cloth and sealed with the seal of RKM and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. Accused was arrested vide personal search memo Ex. PW1/C. Statement of PW1 and PW2 was recorded. PW1 and PW2 identified the case property i.e knife as Ex. P1.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND REASONS FOR DECISION
5. In the list of witnesses, the prosecution cited total five witnesses out of which it examined only two witnesses. The case pertains to the year 1998. A letter bearing no. 423-432/DHC/G- X/Instructions/2012 dated 25.01.2012 was received from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi enclosing the views of Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to achieve zero level pendency for the cases which are more than five years old. Accordingly, in view of above facts, FIR No. 114/98 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Om Pal Singh Page no.3 of 6 the prosecution's evidence was closed.
6. The PW1 & PW2, who are the most important recovery witnesses, categorically stated that the accused was apprehended at Circus Ground, Raja Garden, Delhi. The time of the incident is 03:10 PM. Keeping in view the place of incident and the time of incident, it cannot be doubted that the public persons were not present at the spot. When the accused was arrested at such a public place, it was the duty of the police officials to join the public persons as witnesses to the recovery of kife. In this regard, I rely on the case of Pawan Kumar V/s Delhi Admn. 1987 C.C.Cases 585 (Del.) wherein it was held that "Evidence shows that a large number of public persons were present when the knife was recovered. No attempt was made to make any public witness and only two constables are the spot witnesses. Under these circumstances, police witnesses do not inspire confidence. Accused is acquitted."
7. It is also observed that in the recovery memo of knife, the F.I.R. number finds place while the F.I.R. was lodged after the preparation of recovery memo which is also prepared at the spot. It left all the option open to change or alter the case property easily. On this account, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
8. It is further observed that some mandatory provisions of law have not been complied with by the prosecution. The relevant FIR No. 114/98 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Om Pal Singh Page no.4 of 6 entries regarding the arrival and departure of the police official has not been proved on record. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as Rattan Lal V/s State, 1987 (2) Crimes 29 Delhi High Court wherein it has been observed that -
"If the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
9. From the evidence produced on record and the above facts, I of the opinion that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In this regard, reliance can be placed on 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 FIR No. 114/98 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Om Pal Singh Page no.5 of 6 consideration of the entire evidence, if the judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused."
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence produced on record, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence under Section 25, 54 & 59 of Arms Act against the accused. The accused is accordingly acquitted for the said offence.
11. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 21.07.2012 (Naresh Kumar Laka) Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 114/98 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Om Pal Singh Page no.6 of 6