1 IN THE COURT OF [ENTITY] LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:NORTH Criminal Appeal No. 22/10 I.D No. 02401R0221842010 Sh. [ENTITY] Son of Sh. [ENTITY] R/o T1209, Kabir Basti Malka Ganj Delhi. Appellant Versus STATE (N.C.T. of Delhi) Respondent Date of Institution:25.05.10 Date of reserving judgment:25.09.10 Date of pronouncement: 08.10.10 JUDGMENT
1 By the present judgment, I shall dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant [ENTITY] U/[SECTION] [ACT] for setting aside the judgment dated 27.4.10 and order on sentence also dated 27.4.10 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. 2 Brief facts of the case are that on 12.01.07 at about 6.00 P.M at ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Local Bus Stand out gate, Boulevard Road, Delhi appellant was found in possession of one buttondar knife in contravention of the notification issued by the Delhi Administration. 3 Charge U/[SECTION] [ACT] was framed by the Ld. Trial Court, to which appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4 To prove its case, three witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. They are ASI [ENTITY] (PW1), Ct. [ENTITY] (PW2) and ASI [ENTITY] (PW3).
5 Statement of accused was recorded U/[SECTION] [ACT] Accused did not examine any witness in his defence.
6 After hearing the arguments from Ld. APP for State and ld. counsel for accused/appellant, Ld. Trial Court found the appellant guilty of commission of offence U/[SECTION] [ACT] and, therefore, he was convicted on 27.4.10. After hearing the arguments on the point of sentence, accused/appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. Benefit of [SECTION] [ACT] was also given.
7 The grounds taken in appeal are that the judgment/order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises; that the judgment/order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is against the law and facts of the case and is also against the principles of natural justice; that Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that there was crowd on the local bus stand of ISBT, but none was joined as a witness; that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that a person, who is in possession of unauthorised arms and ammunitions will not invite the police to arrest him by roaming around the police ; that prosecution did not prove the notification before the Ld. Trial Court; that recovery allegedly made from the accused is doubtful and prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 8 I have heard Ld. counsel for appellant and ld. Addl. P.P for State. I have perused the appeal file as well as the Trial Court record. 9 So far as the question of nonjoining the public witness at the time of recovery of knife from the appellant is concerned, I am of the considered view that Ld. Trial Court has validly and reasonably dealt with that plea by relying upon the following judgments:
([PRECEDENT]
([PRECEDENT]
(iii) [PRECEDENT]
(iv) [PRECEDENT]
(v) Kashmira Singh V. State of Punjab, 1999 Cril.LJ 2876,
(vi) [PRECEDENT]
(vii) Mutum Seityaban Singh V. State of Manipur, 2008 Crl. LJ
(viii) [PRECEDENT]
([PRECEDENT]. 10 In all these judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the testimony of police official cannot be discarded only because that their testimony is not corroborated with any independent or public witness. There is no rule of law that the evidence of police officials has to be discarded or that it suffers from some internal infirmity.
11 Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that "No doubt joining of independent witness is necessary for authentication of recovery but non joining of independent witness may not be fatal for prosecution in all the cases. Where the recovery of knife is well proved by the cogent evidence of police witnesses, such evidence cannot be brushed aside only on the ground that witnesses examined are official witnesses. Court is required to be very circumspect to assess the evidence of official witnesses with critical approach, but it is not in every case that evidence are to be thrown away only on the ground that witnesses are the official witnesses. In this case, witnesses have cogently and consistently testified about all the material aspects including recovery of knife and there being nothing either in examinationinchief or in crossexamination for disbelieving the evidence.
12 So far as the grievance of appellant that notification has not been proved on record by the prosecution during the trial, I am of the considered view that the omission on the part of the prosecution is not fatal to prosecution case as 'judicial notice' of a Gazette Notification, can be taken by the court. 13 I have gone through the testimonies of PWs examined by the prosecution. I find no ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW2, who is the complainant of this case and who apprehended the accused/appellant with knife. PW2 Ct. [ENTITY] has fully supported the prosecution story and there is nothing in his crossexamination, which could shake the testimony of this witness.
14 In view of above discussion, I find no illegality of impropriety in the judgment of Ld. Trial Court, which requires interference by this court. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 27.4.10 passed by Ld. Trial Court is upheld.
15 So far as the sentence point is concerned, I am of the considered view that Ld. Trial Court has already taken a lenient view by sentencing the accused to imprisonment for the period, already undergone by him. Besides that, the benefit of [SECTION] [ACT] has also been given to the appellant. In view of above facts, the order on sentence dated 27.4.10 passed by the Ld. Trial Court also does not require any interference.
16 Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 27.4.10 and order on sentence dated 27.4.10 passed by Ld. Trial Court are upheld.
17 Trial court record alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY on 8.10.2010 ([ENTITY]) Addl. Sessions Judge : (North) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.