Delhi District Court
State vs . Narang Devi on 4 June, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. NARANG DEVI
FIR NO. 756/04
P.S. Uttam Nagar
Date of institution of case :12/01/2005
Date on which case reserved for judgment:19/05/2009
Date of judgment :04/06/2009
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr. P.C.
a)Date of offence :30/08/2004
b)Offence complained of :U/s 61-1-14 Punjab Excise
Act, 1914 as applicable to
Delhi.
c)Name of accused, his parentage :Narang Devi W/o Ram
& residence Narain R/o A-17, Phase-3,
Pappan Kalan, New Delhi.
d)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
e)Final Order : Acquitted
2
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION :
Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
1. On 30.08.2004 at 7.25 PM, Ct. Subhash while on a patrolling duty opposite DPS School, Matiala spotted a lady, accused in the present case with a white Plastic Can who on realizing that she is being watched, turned back and started walking with fast spaces which raised suspicion in the mind of Ct. Subhash who then chased and stopped her only to find liquor in the plastic cane. Information was given telephonically to PP, Matiala, HC Dalbir Singh who reached at the spot as IO, who then recorded the statement of Ct. Subhash. Upon measuring the liquor found in the plastic cane, it came out to be 12 bottles of 750 ml. each, out of which one bottle was taken out as a sample. The sample and case property were sealed with the seal of DS. They were then taken into police possession vide a Seizure Memo. Form M-29 was prepared. Rukka was then prepared on the basis of which, FIR was registered. On receipt of the copy of FIR, site plan was prepared by IO. Accused was arrested and thereafter released on bail.
2. On conclusion of investigation, Challan was prepared by IO. 3
Cognizance was taken by the court of the said offence. On finding Prima facie enough material on record, charge U/S. 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act, 1914 as applicable to Delhi was framed against the accused vide order dated 21/10/2005 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial instead.
3. Matter was then listed for PE.
4. PW1 is Ct. Subhash who deposed to have spotted the accused in front of DPS School, Matiala first spotted the accused with the Can, while being on a patrolling duty in front of DPS School, Matiala. Suspicion made him stop her. The plastic cane carried by accused was found containing liquor. Telephonic information was sent to PS, on receipt of which HC Dalbir Singh was sent to the spot for investigation, who recorded statement of Ct. Subhash which, he proved as Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. As per his deposition, 4-5 passer byes were asked to join the investigation who refused to so join. On checking, the plastic cane was found containing 12 bottles of liquor of 750 ml. each. After taking out one quarter as sample, both sample and case property were sealed with the seal of DS and seal as per deposition was handed 4 over to Ct. Subhash. He also proved Seizure Memo Ex. PW1/B vide which the case property and sample property were taken into police possession bearing his signature at point A. He further went to Police Station taking the Rukka and brought copy of FIR and original Rukka back to spot after registration of FIR and handed over the same to IO. He also further proved the Arrest Memo Ex. PW1/C bearing his signature at point A. He also identified correctly the case property collectively as Ex.P1.
5. PW2 is ASI Bal Kishan who was DO on relevant date and had recorded FIR on the basis of Rukka sent by HC Dalbir Singh through Ct. Subhash. He proved copy of FIR as Ex. PW2/A and his endorsement on Rukka as Ex. PW2/B, both bearing his signatures at point A. He was not cross-examined despite opportunity.
6. PW3 is Ct. Rambir who was MHC(M) at relevant time. Ct.
Rambir testified that sample property along with Excise Form were handed over to ________ for its deposition in Excise Laboratory vide Road Certificate No. 260/21, the receipt after deposition of which was handed over to him back.
5
7. PW4 HC Dalbir Singh who was the IO in the present case who reached at the spot i.e. in front of DPS School on receipt of information regarding apprehension of accused. He deposed to have recorded the statement Ex.PW1/A of Ct. Subhash bearing his signature at point A. He further testified to have asked 4-5 passer byes to join the investigation but all refused and left without disclosing their whereabouts. He further deposed to have found 12 bottles (750 ml each) out of which one was kept as a sample. He deposed to have filled Form M-29 at the spot which is already prove as Ex.PW4/A. The sample property and case property were sealed with seal of DS which was then handed over to ASI Bal Kishan. He duly proved Seizure Memo Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point B vide which the sample and case property were taken into police possession.
8. PW4 also proved Site Plan Ex. 4/B bearing his signature at point A and prepared by him at instance of Ct. Subhash. He also proved Arrest Memo Ex. PW1/C bearing his signature at point B. Statement of witnesses were recorded by him.
9. PW4 further testified to have sent Ct. ______ to Excise 6 Laboratory with case property deposited with MHC(M) at Malkhana PS Uttam Nagar. He has prove the Excise result as Ex.PW43/C. He identified correctly the case property as Ex. P1.
10. PE was then concluded.
11. Statement of accused U/S. 313 C.r.P.C read with section 281 C.r.P.C was then recorded where in all the incriminating evidence was put to accused where she denied and submitted that she has been falsely implicated in the case.
12. Final arguments advanced.
13. I have perused the case record and considered the rival submissions made.
14. In the matter at hand, only four prosecution witnesses have been examined. All those four witnesses are official police witnesses. Out of these four, two remain formal witnesses, who have come forward only to prove the official record.
15. Now, in the present matter, needless to mention, no public witness has been examined. The incident is of prime evening hours on the road. As per deposition of PW4, he did ask some passer byes to join the 7 investigation but all of them refused. On record, their names and addresses, even for same of mentioning have not been written to substantiate his deposition. The same appears to be a routine empty formality. IO concerned is a public official empowered by Law to conduct investigation. He has not taken any actions against the people, who refused to join investigation.
16. The accused in the present case is a lady. As per deposition of PW4, some lady was asked to carry out personal search of accused, who refused to sign on the Personal Search Memo. In fact the lady refused to disclose even her name and left. The above mentioned testimony is beyond absorption. By any means of domains of a reasonable mind, the same can not be contemplated. The evidence as it is on record is very scant and the one which is there is unable to stand basic reasonable scrutiny.
17. None of the prosecution witness in the matter has been cross examined. Even the deposition as it is, if accepted without even standing the test of cross examination do not figure to be story and corroborative enough to effect any culpability on accused.
8
18. Seizure Memo in the matter has been testified to be prepared before Registration of FIR. Tehrir was prepared and sent to PS, both as per deposition of PW1 and PW4 after the alleged recovered liquor was measured, then sealed and then taken into police possession vide Seizure Memo proved on record as Ex.PW1/B. Ex.PW1/B on perusal reflects although the mentioning of FIR No. on it which remains unexplainable on record. There is nothing on record the DD Entry vide which Ct. Subhash was on patrolling on the relevant date and time.
19. The Arrest Memo proved as Ex.PW1/C on record mentions the temporary address of accused as A-17, Phase-3, Sector-3, Pappankalan. Incidentally and mysteriously enough, the place of arrest is also the same. Same has nowhere been reflected in the prosecution version. Site plan proved as Ex.PW4/A tries to reflect a distinct perspective. The deposition on record tries to present the picture in a separate fashion. The site remains the same but presented otherwise to avoid apparent conflicts.
20. The above mentioned circumstances ________ for being unable to accept and act upon the prosecution evidence. Same appears to collapse under its own faulty picture and design. Accused can not be burdened with 9 any liability, if burden adequately of proof is not discharged by prosecution. It is true that stronger hands have to reflect the wisdom to stand and substantiate its substratum.
21. In view of aforesaid discussion, I decline to accept the prosecution version. I accordingly acquit accused Narang Devi of charges of offences punishable U/s 61/1/14 of Punjab Exise Act, 1914 as applicable to Delhi.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (SHELLYARORA) COURT ON 04/06/2009 M.M.-06(West)/Delhi