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 : 188/3 [CASE NUMBER] Date of Institution : 19.05.2005 Date on which case reserved for judgment : 18.07.2011 Date of judgment : 27.07.2011 Name of the complainant : SI [ENTITY], P. S. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi Date of the commission of offence: 22.02.2005 [CASE NUMBER] P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur Page No.1 of 8 Name of accused : [ENTITY] s/o Sh. [ENTITY] r/o H. No.1841, Janta Flats, Nand Nagri, Delhi 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 : 19.05.2005 Date on which case reserved for judgment : 18.07.2011 Date of judgment : 27.07.2011 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 P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur for an alleged offence under [SECTION] of [ACT]. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.02.2005 at 04:40PM at Bus Stand, B. P. Marg, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, the accused was found in possession of a button operated knife without any license or permit and in contravention of notification issued by the Delhi Admn. and thereby committed an offence punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT].
2. The report U/[SECTION] [ACT] was filed on 19.05.2005. Cognizance of the offence was taken.
3. Charge for the offence U/[SECTION] [ACT] against the accused was framed on 14.07.2005.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
4. The prosecution to prove its case examined three PWs in all.
PW1 ASI [ENTITY] (the duty officer) is a formal witness. He proved the copy of the FIR Ex.PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. PW2 Ct. [ENTITY] stated, on 22.02.2005 I was posted at P. S. Kotla Mubarakpur. I was on Anti Pick Pocketing duty with SI [ENTITY] and Ct. [ENTITY]. At about 04:40PM we were at Bus Stand at B. P. Marg. One bus under STA permit came from South Extension side. The accused correctly identified along with other passengers alighted from the said bus. On seeing us he tried to flee away. On suspicion, accused (correctly identified) was apprehended. On casual search of accused, one buttondar knife was recovered from the right side pocket of his pant. Sketch of the knife was prepared by the IO, the same is Ex.PW2/A. The recovered knife was sealed in a pulanda with the seal of GP. It was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. Rukka was prepared and the FIR of this case was got registered through Ct. [ENTITY]. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/C. The recovered knife was identified by the witness. Same is Ex.P1.
PW3 Ct. [ENTITY] corroborated the testimony of PW2. Vide order dated 05.07.2011, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED :
5. On 13.07.2011 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 Ld. APP for the State and the accused.
Ld. APP for the State has argued that a buttondar 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 was picked up from his house. He has been falsely implicated. 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 investigating agency 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 "[PRECEDENT], "[PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
10. PW2 stated that on the date of incident at the relevant time he along with PW3 and SI [ENTITY] was on Anti Pick Pocketing Duty. However, no record has been produced to prove that they were deputed for anti pick pocketing duty/patrolling duty on the relevant date, time and place.
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 of the offence punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT].
14. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court ([ENTITY]) on 27.07.2011 MM04(South):Saket Courts:New Delhi 27.07.2011