In the Court of Sh. [ENTITY], M.M (C01), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 112/01 Unique Case ID No. 02401R0119632001 [ENTITY] State vs. [ENTITY] Judgment: Name of complainant SI Subodh Anand Name of accused [ENTITY] @ Kana, S/o Sh. Barkat Ali, R/o F80, Janta Colony, PS Welcome, Delhi. Date of commission of offence 06.04.2001 Date of institution of challan 19.05.2001 Offences complained of 25/54/59 Arms Act Offences charged with 25 ([ACT](b) Arms Act Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty Arguments heard/order reserved 19.04.2011 Date of Pronouncement 21.04.2011 Order Acquitted Brief statement of the reasons for the decision: 1 On 06.04.2001 at about 05.45 p.m at Bank Street near Jain Mandir, the accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife without any permit or licence and thereby he committed an offence FIR No : 112/01 1 of 7 punishable under [SECTION] [ACT]. After following appropriate procedure, the accused was arrested in this case after registration of FIR. 2 On conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and copy was supplied to accused. 3 The charge for offence under [SECTION] [ACT] was framed against the accused on 18.09.2002, to which he claimed trial by pleading not guilty. 4 The prosecution has examined four witnesses in support of its case. 5 PW1 HC [ENTITY] is the formal witness being duty officer on 06.04.2001. He has proved the copy of FIR Ex.PW1/A by producing the original of the same. His endorsement on [ENTITY] Mark X was also proved. Despite opportunity, he was not cross examined by the defence. 6 PW2 Ct. [ENTITY] is a material witness. On 06.04.2001
he alongwith SI Subodh Anand were on patrolling duty. At about 05:45 p.m at Bank street at Jain Mandir they saw that one person was coming in a suspicious condition who on seeing police party tried to move fast. Upon suspicion accused was chased and apprehended.
FIR No : 112/01 2 of 7 Sketch of Knife Ex.PW2/A and Seizure Memo Ex.PW2/B were proved by this witness. [ENTITY] was prepared by IO SI Subodh Anand and got the case registered through this witness. He came back on the spot alongwith second I.O, SI [ENTITY] (PW4) as further investigation of the present case was assigned to him. Disclosure statement Ex. PW2/C, personal search memo Ex.PW2/D, arrest memo Ex.PW2/E were proved by this witness. He identified the knife Ex.P1. Despite opportunity, he was not cross examined by the defence. 7 PW3 SI Subodh Anand is a material witness. He was on patrolling alongwith Ct. [ENTITY] on 06.04.2001. At about 05:45 pm at Bank street at Jain Mandir they saw that one person was coming in a suspicious condition who on seeing the police party tried to ran fast. Upon suspicion accused was chased and apprehended. Sketch of Knife Ex.PW2/A and Seizure Memo Ex.PW2/B were proved by this witness. [ENTITY] Ex.PW3/A was prepared by this witness and got the case registered through Ct. [ENTITY] who came back on the spot alongwith SI [ENTITY] (PW4) as further investigation of the present case was assigned to him. Custody of accused, case property as well as prepared documents were handed over to SI [ENTITY] by this witness. Disclosure statement Ex. PW2/C and personal search FIR No : 112/01 3 of 7 memo Ex.PW2/D were proved by this witness. Accused as well as knife Ex.P1 were also identified by this witness. Despite opportunity, he was not cross examined by the defence.
8 2nd I.O, SI [ENTITY] himself is PW4. Although he was not part of patrolling party, however, investigation was assigned to him. Site Plan Ex.PW4/A was prepared by this witness at the instance of SI Subodh Anand. Arrest Memo and Personal Search Memo Ex.PW2/D & Ex.PW2/E of accused were proved by this witness. Despite opportunity, he was not cross examined by the defence. 9 In his statement under [SECTION] [ACT] recorded in accordance with [SECTION] [ACT], the accused denied all incriminating evidence submitting that nothing was recovered from his possession and has been falsely implicated in this case. Despite opportunity, he did not opt to lead D.E. 10 I have heard final arguments and gone through the record carefully and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and entire aspect of the case.
11 In the present case, only police witnesses have been examined to prove the recovery of knife Ex.P1. Ordinarily, the testimony of police witnesses to recovery is not to be disbelieved FIR No : 112/01 4 of 7 unless there are contradictions in their testimonies which points out towards foul play. Initially recovery was made by PW2 & PW3. It is also clear from the testimony of these witnesses that the raiding party had not offered their own search to the accused prior to his search and had not joined any public person to the investigation. Moreover, no memo in respect of handing over the seal to Ct. was prepared by the I.O.
12 Prosecution case has remained vulnerable to doubt due to the following reasons:
A No independent witness has been joined in the raiding party, though easily available as the recovery of alleged knife was effected at a public place. There is no reason to understand as to why no public person was sought to be join to the investigations conducted after apprehension of the accused and recovery of knife Ex.P1. No notice was given to the public person who refused to join the investigation.
"Reference can be made to [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] 1999 [PRECEDENT], as it has been held that "when no attempt was made by police officer to join FIR No : 112/01 5 of 7 with him some independent person who could not be easily available, then it can effect the weight of evidence of the police officer."
Further it has been held by Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY], Judge High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in case reported in [PRECEDENT] that
"Evidence shows a large number of persons were present when the knife was re covered. No attempt was made to make any public witness. Only two constables are spot witnesses. Under these circumstances, police witnesses do not inspire confidence. Accused acquitted."
B DD entry regarding patrolling duty has not been produced on record.
C No personal search was offered by the I.O/police staff before taking the search of the accused.
D. No memo in respect of handing over the seal was prepared by the I.O.
13 In view of above discussion, it is considered that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Considering the aforesaid and the fact that there is a FIR No : 112/01 6 of 7 complete dearth of evidence against the accused, he is acquitted from the charges leveled against him. The case property be confiscated to the State and be destroyed after the expiry of appeal or revision.
Announced in the [ENTITY] Open Court on 21.04.2011 [CASE NUMBER]
It is certified that this judgment contains seven pages and each page bears my signature.
[ENTITY] M.M(C01)/ Delhi 21.04.2011 FIR No : 112/01 7 of 7