1 INTHECOURTOF[ENTITY],METROPOLITANMAGISTRATE, SOUTHEAST,SAKETCOURTS,NEWDELHI. [ENTITY].[ENTITY]@Gunga@[ENTITY] FIRNo.75/17 PS:OIA U/[SECTION],25/54/59ArmsAct&3/181,[SECTION] JUDGMENT
A. SL.NO.OFTHECASE : 184/2/17 B. DATEOFINSTITUTION : 11.05.2017 C. DATEOFOFFENCE : 09.03.2017 [ENTITY] : SISPSingh No.5911D E. NAMEOFTHEACCUSED : [ENTITY]@Gunga S/oSh.Malkhan F. OFFENCE COMPLAINEDOF : U/[SECTION],25/54/59 [ACT] & 3/181, [SECTION] G. PLEAOFACCUSED : Pleadednotguilty H. FINALORDER : Acquittedu/[SECTION]& [SECTION] convicted u/[SECTION], [SECTION]. I. DATEOFFINALORDER : 23.10.2018
BriefStatementofReasonsforDecision:
1. PresentaccusedispresentbeforetheCourttostandtrialforthe offencepunisbaleunderSection279of[ACT],25/54/59ofArmsActand underSection3/181,146/196,39/192ofM.V.Act.
2. Inbrief,factsofthecaseoftheprosecutionthaton09.03.2017SI SurenderPalSinghreceivedaDDNo.8Aregardingaroadaccidentof onepersonnamely[ENTITY]uponwhichhereachedatHospital.Thepatient wasdeclaredunfitforthestatementbytheconcerneddoctorandonthe basisoftheMLC,IOgotthecaseregisteredunderSection279/337of [ACT]. During the course of investigation Duty Constable [ENTITY] handedovertoIOthreelivecartridgesandinformedtheIOthatsame weregotrecoveredfromtherightpocketofthetrouserwhichwerebeing wornbythepatient.IOpreparedthesketchofsaidcartridgesandseized them,preparedthepullandaandsealthesamewiththesealofSPS.Itis furtherstatedthat sealwashandedoverbytheIOtoHCNityanand. That thereafter, [SECTION] [ACT] were added and the case propertywasdepositedintheMalkhana.
Itisfurtherstatedthaton10.03.2017doctordeclaredthepatientfit forstatementandthenameofthepatientwasfoundtobeShamir@ Gunga @ [ENTITY] and was found to be BC of PS Sangam Vihar. He informedthepolicethaton09.03.20117at03:30AMhealongwithhis friend namely [ENTITY] were coming from Noida to Sangam Vihar upon MotorCyclebearingNo.DL10S8504andwhentheytookaturntowards SanjayColonyOkhlaPhase2theirmotorcyclegotdisbalancedand bothofthemfelldownfromthesameduetowhichhereceivedinjuries andgotunconscious.Hefurtherstatedthathisfriend[ENTITY]calledthe motheroftheaccusedwhoreachedatthespotandgottheaccused admittedtoTraumaCentre.Hefurtherdisclosedthatthecartridgesso foundfromthepocketofhistrouserswerepurchasedbyandhewas going to sell the same. Further sated that his friend [ENTITY] left the accusedatthespotandfledaway.
Thataccusedpersonwerearrestedinthepresentcaseafter being discharged from teh Hospital. IO prepared the site plan at the instanceoftheaccusedandsealedhismotorcycleandgotconducted the mechanical inspection of the same. He further sent the said live cartridges to FSLRohini. Further during the Course ofinvestigation it wasfoundthataccusedwasdrivingthesaidmotorcyclewithoutanyvalid DL,RCandinsuranceandSection3/181,146/196and39/192ofM.V. Actwereadded.Itisfurtherstatedthatduringthecourseofinvestigation where abouts of [ENTITY] could not be found. Further considering that accusedreceivedinjuriesduetohisownnegligenceSection337was deleted.Aftercompletionofinvestigationchargesheetwasfiledbythe IOintheCourt.
3. Accused person was produced before the Court on 11.04.2015 fromJCandcopyofchargesheetwassuppliedtohimincomplianceof [SECTION][ACT],accusedwaschargedfortheoffence [SECTION] 25/54/59ofArmsAct,bytheLd.PredecessorCourton07.06.2017to whichaccusedpleadednotguiltyandclaimedtrial.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined following witnesses:
4.1PW1Ct.[ENTITY] postedasconstableatPSOIAandjoinedtheinvestigationwithIO/SI [ENTITY],IOarrestedtheaccused [ENTITY], and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B, and information of his arrest was given to his mother. He furtherdeposedthathedonotrememberifanyotherproceedingswere conducted in this case in his presence. He correctly identified the accusedinthecourt.
SaidwitnesswasdeclaredhostilebyLd.APPforthestateand wascrossexaminedbyhim.
4.2PW2Ct.[ENTITY] deposedthaton09.03.2017,hewas postedasdutyconstableatPPAIIMSTraumaCenter,PSSafdarjung Enclaveandonthatdayhewasinformedbythedoctorthatapatient namely[ENTITY]wasadmittedinthehospitalandthreelivecartridgeswere recoveredfromthepossessionoftheinjured/patient.Hefurtherdeposed thathemetDr.[ENTITY]whohandedoverthreelivecartridgestohim whichwererecoveredfromthepossessionoftheaccused.Hefurther deposedthatheinformedatPSOIAandIO/SIS.PSinghcameatAIIMS TraumaCenter,andhehandedovertheabovesaidthreelivecartridges tohim.HefurtherdeposedthatIOhadkeptallthethreelivecartridgesin aplasticboxandpreparedthepullandaofthesameanddulysealedwith thesealof"SPS"videseizurememoEx.PW2/A
4.3PW3ASISurajpalprovedtheFIREx.PW3/B. 4.4 PW4 Sh. [ENTITY] proved the mechanical inspection reportofvehiclebearingno.DL10S8504Ex.PW4/A. 4.5PW5HC [ENTITY] deposedthatOn09.03.2017hewas postedasHCatPSOIAandonthatdayhealongwithIO/[ENTITY] went to AIIMS Trauma Centre where IO collected MLC of injured [ENTITY].Hefurtherdeposedthatdoctoropinedthatinjuredwasunfitto givestatement.HefurtherdeposedthatIOpreparedtherukkaandgave ittohimandhegottheFIRregisteredandcamebackatAIIMSTrauma CentreandhandedovercopyofFIRandoriginalrukkatoIO.Hefurther deposedthatinthemeantimeCt.[ENTITY]cometotheIOandproduced3 livecartridgestohimandstatedthatthesamehadbeenrecoveredfrom the possession of injured [ENTITY]. He further deposed that IO had preparedsketchofallthe3livecartridgesvideEx.PW2/Bandseized the3livecartridgesafterpreparingpullandaofthesameanddulysealed withthesealofSPSvideseizurememoEx.PW2/A.Hefurtherdeposed thatcasepropertywasdepositedinthemalkhanaandIOrecordedhis statement.
4.6PW6Smt.[ENTITY] deposedthaton09.03.2017ataround 04.00amhereceivedphonecallofone[ENTITY]whoinformedhimthat [ENTITY]metwithanaccidentatOkhlaunderpassOkhlaPhaseIIashis motorcycleslippedontheroad.Shefurtherdeposedthathewenttothe Okhlaunderpassandfoundmotorcycleofhersonwaslyingatthespot inaccidentalcondition.Shefurtherdeposedthatshealongwithherson SunnywenttoAIIMSTraumaCentre.Shecorrectlyidentifiedaccusedin court.
4.7PW7RajivRanjanSingh,DCPTrafficprovedsanctionu/s39 ArmsActon01.09.2017.
4.8PW8BhuneshKumarSharmaprovedtheMLCEx.PW8/A. 4.9 PW9 SI [ENTITY] deposed that on 09.03.2017 he was posted as SI at PSOIA and on that day he received DD No. 8A regardingadmissionofinjuredatAIIMSTraumaCentreuponwhichhe alongwith HC [ENTITY] reached at hospital and collected MLC of injured [ENTITY] and doctor declared him unfit for statement. He further deposedthatthereafterhepreparedrukkau/s279/337[ACT]andsendHC [ENTITY]forregistrationofFIR.Hefurtherdeposedthatthereafterduty constablenamely[ENTITY]producedme3livecartridgeandstatedthatthe samewasrecoveredfromtherightsidepocketofpantofaccusedand thesamewasfoundbydoctor.Hefurtherdeposedthatthereafterhe prepared sketch of same Ex. PW2/B and in the meantime, HC [ENTITY] overthesametohim.Hefurtherdeposedthatthereafterhesealedthe samewiththesealof'SPS'andseizedthesamevideseizurememoEx. PW2/A. He further deposed that thereafter the case property was depositedinMalkhanaandsection25/54/59ArmsActwereaddedinthe presentcase.Hefurtherdeposedthatduringthecourseofinvestigation, casepropertyi.e.livecartridgewassenttoFSLandon10.03.2017he alongwith Ct. [ENTITY] reached at AIIMS Trauma Centre and doctor declaredinjuredfitforstatement.Hefurtherdeposedthatthereafterhe metinjured[ENTITY]andinjuredstatedthathisoriginal nameis[ENTITY] Gunga and that injured was a BC of PSSangam Vihar and he was admitted in hospital in the name of [ENTITY]. He further deposed that thereafter he deputed Ct. [ENTITY] for surveillance of accused and on 15.03.2017 accused was discharged from hospital and thereafter he interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW9/A.Hefurtherdeposedthatthereafterheconductedpersonalsearch andarrestedtheaccusedvidememoswhichisalreadyEx.PW1/Aand PW1/B.Hefurtherdeposedthatthereafterhepreparedsiteplanatthe instanceofaccusedEx.PW9/Bandgotrecoveredaccidentalmotorcycle bearingno.DL10S8504fromthehouseofaccusedvideseizurememo Ex.PW1/[ENTITY]Hefurtherdeposed thatthereafteraccusedproducedbeforethecourtandwassenttolock up.Hefurtherdeposedthatduringthecourseofinvestigationhealso recordedstatementofwitnessesu/s161[ACT]andaftercompletionof investigation,hepreparedchargesheetandsubmittedbeforethecourt. HefurtherdeposedthatafterreceivingofFSLreport,hegotcollectedthe sanction u/[SECTION] [ACT] and prepared supplementary charge sheet against the accused and submitted before the court. He correctly identifiedtheaccusedinthecourt.
4.10 Dr.[ENTITY] deposedthatinMarch2017shewasposted asSr.Resident,MediceneAIIMSTraumaCentreandcouldnotrecall anythingaboutthepresentincident.Saidwitnesswasdeclaredhostileby theLd.APPforthestate.
ItispertinenttostateinheretatFSLreportdated30.05.2017was admitted byaccusedandhis statement u/s294 [ACT] wasrecorded separatelyinthisregard.
5. Itispertinenttostateinherethatalltheprosecutionwitnesses werecrossexaminedbyaccusedhimselfashewishesnottoengage anycounselandtopursuehismatteronhisown.
6. StatementofaccusedUnderSection313of[ACT]wasrecorded on06.10.2018uponwhichaccusedhasadmittedthathewasdrivingthe vehicleandhehasnotanyvalidDL.Hefurtherstatedthatonthealleged datehewasridingalongwith[ENTITY]whowascarryingillegalarmsand ammunitionsandaftertheaccident[ENTITY]couldthesaidammunitionsin his pocket and run away. He further wished not to led any defence evidenceandmaterwaslistedforfinalarguments.
7. IhaveheardtheargumentsledbylearnedAPPfortheStateand bytheaccusedandperusedthecasefilecarefully.
8. Itissettledpropositionoflawthatburdenliesupontheprosecution toproveitsowncase.Itisthecaseofprosecutionthataccusedwas drivinghismotorcycleinrashandnegligentmannerwithouthavingvalid documentsandDLandwhiledrivingthesameinabovesaidmannerhis motorcyclegotdisbalancedandhereceivedsimpleinjuries.Itisfurther thecaseofprosecutionthat3liveammunationswerefoundfromthe possessionoftheaccusedbythedoctorandsamewerehandedoverto dutyofficeri.e.constable[ENTITY]whofurtherhandedoverthesame toIOS.P.SinghAssuchitwasfortheprosecutiontoprovethat:
a)Accusedwasdrivingthemotorcyclebearingno.DL10S8504in rashornegligentmanner.
b)Thatsamewasbeingdrivenbytheaccusedwithouthavingvalid DrivingLicenceandInsurance.
c)That3livecartridgeswererecoveredfromthepossessionofthe accusedperson.
9. Inordertoproveitscase,prosecutionhasexaminedCt.[ENTITY]who deposedthatDr[ENTITY]Sahhandedhimover3livecartridgesstated tohavebeenrecoveredfromtherightpocketoftrouseroftheaccused.
HefurtherstatedthathehandedoversaidcartridgestoIOwhoseized the same. IO further corroborated the fact that 3 live cartridges were handedovertohimbyCt.[ENTITY].
10. ItispertinenttostateinherethatDr.[ENTITY]whosteppedinto witnessboxasPW10statedthathedoesnotrememberfactsofthe present case and did not support the case of prosecution. As such, prosecutionhasfailedtoshowbeyondreasonabledoubts,recoveryof allegedammunitionsfromthepossessionoftheaccused.
Atthisstage,itispertinent to stateinhere thataccusedinhis statementu/[SECTION].P.Chasadmittedthefactthatsaidcartridgeswere recoveredfromhistrousers,howeversamewerekeptinhispocketby [ENTITY],whowasridingwithhimatthetimeofaccident,whileaccused wasunconsciousaftertheaccident.
11.Beforeproceedingfurtherwiththepresentcaseonmerits,itwould berelevanttodealinherewithlawregardstostatementofaccusedu/[SECTION].[PRECEDENT]
"30.Inacriminaltrial,thepurposeofexaminingthe accusedpersonunderSection313[ACT]istomeet therequirementoftheprinciplesofnatural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. This means that the accusedmaybeaskedtofurnishsomeexplanation as regards the incriminating circumstances associatedwithhim,andthecourtmusttakenoteof such explanation. In a case of circumstantial evidence,thesameisessentialtodecidewhether ornotthechainofcircumstancesiscomplete.No matter how weak the evidence of the prosecution maybe,itisthedutyofthecourttoexaminethe accused,andtoseekhisexplanationasregardsthe incriminatingmaterialthathassurfacedagainsthim. Thecircumstanceswhicharenotputtotheaccused inhisexaminationunderSection313[ACT],cannot beusedagainsthimandhavetobeexcludedfrom consideration.
31.InState of Maharashtrav.Sukhdev Singh[(1992) 3 SCC 700 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 705 :
AIR1992SC2100]thisCourtobservedasunder: (SCCp.741,para49) "49 if there is no evidence or circumstance appearing in the prosecutionevidenceimplicatingthe accusedwiththecommissionofthe crimewithwhichheischarged,there isnothingfortheaccusedtoexplain and hence his examination under [SECTION] of the Code would be whollyunnecessaryandimproper.In suchasituationtheaccusedcannot be questioned and his answers cannot be used to supply the gaps leftbywitnessesintheirevidence."
32.InMohanSinghv.PremSingh[(2002)10SCC236:
2003SCC(Cri)1514:AIR2002SC3582]thisCourtheld:(SCC p.245,para30) "30.Thestatementoftheaccused under [SECTION] [ACT] is not a substantivepieceofevidence.Itcan beusedforappreciatingevidenceled bytheprosecutiontoacceptorreject it.Itis,however,notasubstitutefor theevidenceoftheprosecution if theexculpatorypartofhisstatement isfoundtobefalseandtheevidence ledbytheprosecutionisreliable,the inculpatorypartofhisstatementcan betakenaidoftolendassuranceto the evidence of the prosecution. If the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement under [SECTION] [ACT] cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction."
[PRECEDENT]:
(SCCp.92,para23) "23.Statement under [SECTION] oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureis takenintoconsiderationtoappreciate the truthfulness or otherwise of the caseoftheprosecutionanditisnot an evidence. Statement of an accused under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is recorded without administering oath and, therefore, the said statement cannotbetreatedasevidencewithin the meaning of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The appellants have not chosen to examine any other witness to support this plea and in case none was available they were freetoexaminethemselvesinterms of [SECTION] of the [ACT] which, inter alia, providesthatapersonaccusedofan offenceisacompetentwitnessofthe defence and may give evidence on oathindisproofofthecharges.There is reason not to treat the statement under [SECTION] of the [ACT] as evidence as the accused cannot be cross examined with reference to those statements. However, when an accused appears as a witness in defence to disprove the charge, his version can be tested by his cross examination."
34.InStateofM.P.v.Ramesh[(2011)4SCC786:
(2011)2SCC(Cri)493]thisCourtheldasunder:
(SCCp.796,para28) "28.The statement of the accused made under [SECTION] [ACT] can be taken into consideration to appreciate the truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case.
However,assuchastatementisnot recordedafteradministrationofoath and the accused cannot be cross examined,hisstatementsorecorded under [SECTION] [ACT] cannot be treated to be evidence within the meaningofSection3ofthe[ACT],1872.Section315[ACT]enables anaccusedtogiveevidenceonhis own behalf to disprove the charges madeagainsthim.However,forsuch a course, the accused has to offer inwriting to give his evidence in defence.Thus,theaccusedbecomes readytoenterintothewitnessbox,to takeoathandtobecrossexamined onbehalfoftheprosecutionand/orof theaccomplice,ifitissorequired."
(emphasissupplied)
[PRECEDENT] thisCourtobservedasunder:(SCCp.331,para
67) "67.It is true that the statement under [SECTION] [ACT] cannot be the sole basis for conviction of the accused but certainly it can be a relevantconsiderationforthecourts to examine, particularly when the prosecutionhasotherwisebeenable toestablishthechainofevents."
Fromtheabovediscussedcaselawsitisclearthatstatementof accused u/[SECTION] [ACT] is not a substantive piece of evidence and conviction cannot be based solely on the base of statement u/[SECTION] [ACT] thestatementofaccusedu/[SECTION].P.Cforconviction.Inthepresent caseinhand,prosecutionhasfailedtoprovethat3livecartridgeswere recoveredfromthetrousersoftheaccusedasDr.[ENTITY],whohad recoveredsaidcartridgesdidnotsupportthecaseofprosecution.
12. Even if, for the sake of arguments statement as given by the accusedu/[SECTION].P.Careconsidered,itisstatedbytheaccusedthat saidcartridgeswerewith[ENTITY]whowasridingwiththeaccusedatthe allegedtimeandheputthesameinthepocketoftheaccusedwhilehe was unconscious and ran away from the spot. As such, it wasnever averredbytheaccusedthathewasinpossessionofammunitionwith knowledgeofthesame.InGolapSaikiavsState(NctOfDelhi)&Anr. on27March,2017 CRL.M.C.5663/2014,itwasobservedbyHon'ble HighCourtofDelhi:
12. It is well settled law that the expression 'possession' occurring in theSection 25of the [ACT] means conscious possession involving mental element and mere custody without the element of consciousness or knowledgeofthatpossessiondoesnotamount toanyoffenceundertheArmsAct,1959.
13. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble [PRECEDENT] has observed in para 19 that, "The meaningofthefirstingredientof"possession"of anyarmsetc.isnotdisputed.Eventhoughthe word possession is not preceded by any adjective like knowingly, yet it is common groundthatinthecontextthewordpossession mustmeanpossessionwiththerequisitemental element, that is, conscious possession and not mere custody without the awareness of the nature of such possession. There is a mental element in theconcept of possession.
Accordingly, the ingredient of possession in [SECTION] of the [ACT] means conscious possession. This is how the ingredient of possession in similar context of a statutory offence importing strict liability on account of mere possession of an unauthorised substance hasbeenunderstood."
14. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble SupremeCourtinthecaseofGunwantlalv.The StateofMadhyaPradesh,(1972)2SCC194in para 5 explained the meaning of possession in thecontextofSection25oftheArmsAct,1959 andheldasunder: "The possession of a firearm under the[ACT]inourviewmusthave,firstlytheelementof consciousnessorknowledgeofthatpossession in the person charged with such offence and secondly where he has not the actual physical possession, he has nonetheless a power or controloverthatweaponsothathispossession thereon continues despite physical possession beinginsomeoneelse.Ifthiswerenotso,then anownerofahousewholeavesanunlicensed guninthathousebutisnotpresentwhenitwas recoveredbythepolicecanpleadthathewasnot in possessionofiteventhough hehadhimself consciously kept it there when he went out.
Similarly,ifhegoesoutofthehouseduringthe day and in the meantime someone conceals a pistol in hishouseandduringhisabsence,the policearrivesanddiscoversthepistolhecannot be charged with the offence unless it can be shown that he had knowledge of the weapon beingplacedinhishouse."
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX"Aswesaidearlier,the first precondition for an offence underSection 25(1)(a)is the element of intention, consciousnessorknowledgewithwhichaperson possessed the firearm before it can be said to constitute an offence and secondly that possessionneednotbephysicalpossessionbut can be constructive, having power and control overthegun,whilethepersontowhomphysical possessionisgivenholdsitsubjecttothatpower andcontrol."
15. The present case is covered by the above saiddecisionsoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtas the prosecution has failed to prove that the possession was conscious possession and therefore,onthebasisofmerepossessionofa single live cartridge without having any criminal intention, the proceedings cannot continue qua thepetitionerundertheArmsAct,1959.
16.Intheinstantcase,itisapparentontheface of the record that a single live cartridge was recovered from the checkinbaggage of the petitioner without there being any firearm. Absenceoffirearmitselfshowsthatthepetitioner wasnothavingconsciouspossessionofthelive cartridge.The recovery of single cartridge ipso facto does not prove that the petitioner had animuspossidendi.
13. Inthepresentcaseinhand,3livecartridgeswerestatedtohave been recovered from the possession of the accused. As discussed above, prosecution has failed to prove that said cartridges were recoveredfromthepossessionofaccused.Furthermore,evenifthecase oftheprosecutionisbelievedtobetrue,thereisnothingtoshowthat accused was in conscious possessions of said cartridges. Also, no firearm was recovered from the possession of accused, nor there is nothingplacedonrecordtoshowthataccusedwashavinganypoweror controloverthegun.Inviewoftheprosecutionhasfailedtoproveits caseagainsttheaccusedu/[SECTION].
14. It is further the case of prosecution that accused was driving motorcycle bearing no. DL10S8504 in rash or negligent manner in a publicplacehowevernotevenaniotaofevidenceisplacedonrecordby theprosecutiontoshowthatmotorcyclebearingno.DL10S8504was beingdrivenbytheaccusedinrashornegligentmanner.
15. Accusedhereinhasfurtherchargedfordrivingthevehiclewithout havingvalidDLandinsurance.Accusedhasadmittedthesaidfactinhis statementu/[SECTION].P.CthathedoesnothavevalidandeffectiveDL. Further accused has not placed on record his DL or insurance in evidenceinordertoshowthathewashavingvalidandeffectiveDLand Insurance.Inviewofthesameaccusedstandsconvictedfortheoffence punishableu/[SECTION].
ANNOUNCEDINOPENCOURT ([ENTITY]) Todayi.e.23.10.2018 [ENTITY] SOUTHEAST,SAKETCOURTS, NEWDELHI
Presentjudgmentconsistedof17pagesandeachpage bearsmysignatures.
([ENTITY]) [ENTITY] SOUTHEAST,SAKETCOURTS, NEWDELHI