IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY]: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04 (SOUTH), SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI State Vs. [ENTITY] FIR No. 643/06 U/[SECTION] [ACT] J U D G M E N T Serial No. of the Case : 23/3 [CASE NUMBER] Date of Institution : 20.10.2006 Date on which case reserved for judgment : 21.07.2011 Date of judgment : 28.07.2011 Name of the complainant : Ct. [ENTITY], No.1920/SD Date of the commission of offence: 22.09.2006 Name of accused : [ENTITY] s/o Sh. Nek Singh r/o 230, Aliganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi FIR No. 643/06 P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur Page No.1 of 7 Offence complained of : U/[SECTION]/54/59 [ACT] Offence charged of : U/[SECTION]/54/59 [ACT] Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. Final order : Acquitted Date of Institution : 20.10.2006 Date on which case reserved for judgment : 21.07.2011 Date of judgment : 28.07.2011 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 PS Kotla Mubarakpur for an alleged offence under [SECTION] of [ACT]. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.09.2006 at 08:50PM at Arya Samaj Mandir, Near Red Light Traffic Signal, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, the accused was found in possession of a button actuated knife at a public place in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration and thereby committed an offence punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT].
2. The report U/[SECTION] [ACT] was filed on 20.10.2006. Cognizance of the offence was taken.
3. Charge for the offence U/[SECTION] [ACT] against the accused was framed on 06.12.2007.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
4. The prosecution to prove its case examined one PW.
PW1 [ENTITY] stated, on 22.09.2006 I was posted at P. S. Kotla Mubarakpur. On that day I was on patrolling duty. I was present at Arya Samaj Mandir in front of [ENTITY]. I saw one person standing there. On seeing me he started moving at a fast speed. 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. I sent the information about the incident to the P.S. [ENTITY] along with Ct. [ENTITY] reached the spot. I handed over the accused and the recovered case property to IO [ENTITY]. Sketch of the knife was prepared by the IO, 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. IO recorded my statement Ex.PW1/C. [ENTITY] was prepared and the FIR of this case was got registered through 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 01.06.2011, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED :
5. On 07.06.2011 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. PW1 stated that on the date of incident at the relevant time he was deputed on area patrolling duty. However, no record has been produced to prove that he was deputed for 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 28.07.2011 MM04(South):Saket Courts:New Delhi 28.07.2011