IN THE COURT OF SH [ENTITY] METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIV NORTH WEST ROHINI COURTS, DELHI [CASE NUMBER]321/3 2.Unique I.D. No. :02401R0125612000 3.Title of the case: :[ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY] FIR No. 690/00, PS Mangol Puri 4.Date of institution :18.09.00 5.Date of reserving Judgment :07.05.13 6.Date of pronouncement :07.05.13 J U D G M E N T :
(a)The date of commission 20.08.00 (b)The name of complainant [ENTITY] (c)The name of accused [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o E82223, Mangol Puri (a)The offence complained of 25/54/59 [ACT] (b)The plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty (c)The final order Acquitted (d)The date of such order 07.05.13 Brief facts for the decision of the case:
1. In the present case, accused [ENTITY] was put to the trial for the offence U/[SECTION] [ACT] on the allegations that on FIR No 690/00 St Vs [ENTITY] Page 1 Of 12 20.08.00 at CBlock, in front Tanga stand, DDA Park, Mangol Puri, Delhi, Complainant/ [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were on patrolling duty where they received secret information regarding one person having illegal arms. Complaiant/[ENTITY] asked 45 passer byes to join investigation but none joined the investigation and left without telling their whereabouts. At 08:15 PM secret informer pointed towards the accused and they apprehended the accused. From the possession of accused one [ENTITY] Knife was recovered. Sketch of Case property was made and case property was sealed with seal of `MSK` and seal after use was handed over to [ENTITY]. Case property was seized vide seizure memo. Complainant/ [ENTITY] prepared rukka and got the FIR registered through [ENTITY], who returned to the spot with original rukka and copy of FIR alongwith IO/[ENTITY]. Site plan was prepared by IO/[ENTITY]. Accused was arrested and his personal search was carried out by IO/[ENTITY]. IO recorded the statements. Case property was deposited in Malkhana with MHC(M).
FIR No 690/00 St Vs [ENTITY] Page 2 Of 12 The notification issued by Delhi Administration which prohibits the possession of buttondar knives etc. was also placed on record.
After the usual investigation, the charge sheet for the offence U/[SECTION] [ACT] was prepared against the accused persons.
2. The aforesaid charge sheet was filed before the court on 18.09.00, whereupon the cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused.
The provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] was complied on 22.02.01.
3. After hearing the arguments, the accused was charged for the alleged commission of the offence U/[SECTION] [ACT] on the allegation that on 20.08.00 at 8.45 PM at CBlock, in front Tanga stand, DDA Park, Mangol Puri, Delhi, one [ENTITY] Knife was recovered from his possession in contravention of notification issued by the Delhi Administration to which the accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and instead claimed trial and accordingly the case was fixed FIR No 690/00 St Vs [ENTITY] Page 3 Of 12 for prosecution evidence.
4. During the course of the trial prosecution has examined 5 witnesses PW1 [ENTITY], PW2 [ENTITY], PW3 [ENTITY], PW4 [ENTITY] and PW5 ASI [ENTITY] to substantiate the accusation made against the accused.
5. Thereafter, PE was closed as all PW's were examined and matter was fixed for SA on 22.08.12.
6. The [ENTITY]ment of Accused was recorded U/[SECTION]/[SECTION] [ACT] on 07.05.13 and all the incriminating circumstances came in evidence were put to the accused to which the accused replied was he was falsely implicated and he does not want to lead defense evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. APP for the [ENTITY] and the Ld. FIR No 690/00 St Vs [ENTITY] Page 4 Of 12 Counsel for the accused and have gone through the entire record. Now let us examine the prosecution evidence brought on record against the accused.
8. In the present case, prosecution has produced and examined 5 witnesses. The testimonies of PW1, PW4 and PW5 are of formal nature whereas testimonies of PW2 and PW3 are material one being recovery witnesses.
PW1 was the DO who exhibited FIR as Ex PW1/A. PW2 was the recovery witness who exhibited the sketch memo as Ex PW2/A, seizure Memo as Ex PW2/B, arrest memo as Ex PW2/C and personal search Memo as Ex PW2/D. He also deposed about the proceedings conducted by IO in his presence. He Exhibited the case FIR No 690/00 St Vs [ENTITY] Page 5 Of 12 property as Ex P1.
PW3 was the 1st IO and recovery witness who exhibited rukka as Ex PW3/A and case property as Ex P1. He also deposed about the proceedings conducted by him.
PW4 was the IO of the case who exhibited the site plan as Ex. PW4/A. He also deposed about the proceedings conducted by him. PW5 was the MHC(M) in whose custody case property was deposited in the malkhana. He exhibited the relevant entry of register No. 19 as Ex PW5/A
9. As per prosecution story, Complainant/PW2 and PW3 were on patrolling duty when they received secret information regarding accused and accused persons was apprehended and [ENTITY] Knife FIR No 690/00 St Vs [ENTITY] Page 6 Of 12 was allegedly recovered from his possession.
As per prosecution story, the [ENTITY] Knife was recovered from the possession of accused at 8.45 PM at CBlock, in front Tanga stand, DDA Park, Mangol Puri, Delhi which is public Place. However, in spite of it IO had failed to join any public witness in the investigation of present case.
At this stage, reference can also be made to a case titled as Nanak Chand vs. [ENTITY] of Delhi reported as 1992 Cr.L.J 55 wherein it was held that the recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may cast doubt.
It is well settled principal of law that the investigating agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in FIR No 690/00 St Vs [ENTITY] Page 7 Of 12 such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly, the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the investigating officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the investigating officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for nonjoining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together FIR No 690/00 St Vs [ENTITY] Page 8 Of 12 makes the prosecution case highly doubtful
10.It is pertinent to mention that as per prosecution version the seal after use was handed over by Complainant/PW3 to PW2. Both of them were posted in the same police station on the relevant date and time. Seal was not handed over to any independent witness. In such a situation the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out.
11. Further it is alleged that Complainant/PW3 and PW2 were on patrolling however no DD entries have been placed on record/ proved to establish the departure and arrival of the said police officials on patrolling.
12.Moreover the edifice of the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the notification dated 17.02.1979 of the Delhi Administration FIR No 690/00 St Vs [ENTITY] Page 9 Of 12 which prohibits the possession of knives, which inter alia, have a blade of length 7.12 cm or more and breadth of 1.72 cm or more. It is trite that until the width of the blade of the knife is greater than 1.72 cm the knife does not fall within the prohibition of the notification dated 17.02.1979. Adverting to the facts of the case it is revealed that the width of the blade of the knife has not been mentioned. This is also an irregularity committed by the IO.
13.In the judgment titled as "S. L. Goswami v. [ENTITY] of M.P." reported as 1972 CRI. L. J. 511 (SC) 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 FIR No 690/00 St Vs [ENTITY] Page 10 Of 12 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. "
14. 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 Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, FIR No 690/00 St Vs [ENTITY] Page 11 Of 12 Guntur reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC).
15.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] of [ACT] Announced in the open court ( [ENTITY]) on 07.05.13 M(IV) N/W DELHI FIR No 690/00 St Vs [ENTITY] Page 12 Of 12