IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY]: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04 (SOUTH), SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI State Vs. [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] U/[SECTION] [ACT] J U D G M E N T Serial No. of the Case : 160/3 [CASE NUMBER] Date of Institution : 20.11.2007 Date on which case reserved for judgment : 20.04.2011 Date of judgment : 30.04.2011 Name of the complainant : Ct. [ENTITY], No.1696/SD PS Kotla Mubarakpur. Date of the commission of offence: 24.08.2007 Name of accused : [ENTITY] s/o Sh. [ENTITY] r/o H. No.997/14, [ENTITY], Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi [CASE NUMBER] P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur Page No.1 of 8 Offence complained of : U/[SECTION] [ACT] Offence charged of : U/[SECTION] [ACT] Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. Final order : Acquitted Date of Institution : 20.11.2007 Date on which case reserved for judgment : 20.04.2011 Date of judgment : 30.04.2011 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE BRIEF FACTS:-
The accused [ENTITY] has been sent up for trial by the Police of PS Kotla Mubarakpur for an alleged offence under [SECTION] of [ACT]. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 24.08.2007 at 05:20PM at Mohan Singh Market, Liquor Shop, INA, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, the accused was found in unlawful possession of a button actuated knife without any license or permit as per notification of the Delhi Government and thereby committed an offence punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT].
2. The report U/[SECTION] [ACT] was filed on 20.11.2007. Cognizance of the offence was taken.
3. Charge for the offence U/[SECTION] [ACT] against the accused was framed on 29.01.2010.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
4. The prosecution to prove its case examined three PWs in all.
PW1 [ENTITY] stated, on 24.08.2007 I was on patrolling duty in the area of Mohan Singh Market, INA. I saw one person coming from Kotla Mubarakpur side. On suspicion he was apprehended. On his cursory search, a buttondar knife was recovered from his right dhub (under the belt) of his wearing pant. I sent the information to the PS. [CASE NUMBER] reached the spot and I handed over the accused and the recovered knife to him. He recorded my statement Ex.PW1/C. Sketch of the knife was prepared, the same is Ex.PW1/A. The recovered knife was sealed in a pulanda with the seal of JS. It was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. FIR was got registered through me. IO prepared site plan. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/E. I identify the accused present in the court today. The recovered knife was identified by the witness. Same is Ex.P1.
PW2 HC [ENTITY] stated, on 24.08.2007 I was posted at PS Kotla Mubarakpur. On receipt of DD no.16A, I reached the spot of incident. Ct. [ENTITY] met me. He handed over the accused (correctly identified) and the recovered knife to me. Sketch of the knife was prepared, the same is Ex.PW1/A. The recovered knife was sealed in a pulanda with the seal of JS. It was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. I recorded the statement of Ct. [ENTITY] and prepared rukka Ex.PW2/A. FIR was got registered through him. I prepared site plan Ex.PW2/B at the instance of Ct. [ENTITY]. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/E. The recovered knife was identified by the witness. Same is Ex.P1.
Vide order dated 23.03.2011, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED :
5. On 07.04.2011 statement of accused U/[SECTION] [ACT] was recorded. It was stated by the accused that he has been falsely implicated. Accused did not wish to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE :
6. No defence evidence has been led by the accused. ARGUMENTS :
7. Arguments were advanced by the accused and the Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. APP for the State has argued that a button actuated knife was recovered from the possession of the accused in contravention of the notification issued by Delhi Administration and therefore he is liable to be punished for offence under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
It was submitted by the accused that he has been falsely implicated in this case and nothing has been recovered from him. The PWs have falsely deposed.
REASONING :
8. Firstly no independent public person was joined in the investigation/proceedings to witness the recovery/search/proceedings. It cannot be said that none of the independent public witness was available at the time of recovery or while recording of proceedings. In fact what emerges from the record is that no public witness was joined in the investigation/search/seizure and no sincere efforts were made to associate independent public witnesses during the investigation.
9. The failure on the part of the prosecution to join public witnesses casts a doubt on the prosecution story. No plausible explanation is coming from the prosecution for non joining of independent witnesses. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as "Prem Singh v. State"
reported as 1996 CRI. L. J. 3604, "Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Admn."
reported as 1989 CRI. [CASE NUMBER] and [PRECEDENT].
10. Further it is alleged that PW1 was on patrolling however no DD entries have been placed on record/proved to establish the departure and arrival of PW1 on patrolling.
11. In the judgment titled as "[PRECEDENT] the Hon'ble supreme Court held :
" In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. "
12. The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as [PRECEDENT].
13. For the forgoing reasons, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Benefit of doubt is given to the accused. The accused is accordingly acquitted for the offence punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT].
Pronounced in open court ([ENTITY]) on 30.04.2011 MM04(South):Saket Courts:New Delhi 30.04.2011 State Vs. [ENTITY] U/[SECTION] [ACT] P. S.-Kotla Mubarakpur 30.04.2011 Present: Ld. APP for the State. Accused on bail with Ld. Counsel.
Vide separate judgment of even date, the accused acquitted of offence punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT].
Bail bond canceled and surety discharged.
Original documents, if any be released against proper receipt and on verification of identity.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
([ENTITY]) MM-04(South):Saket Courts:30.04.2011