IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI F.I.R. No: 677/00 Unique Case ID No. R018762000 U/[SECTION] [ACT] P.S. Nangloi In Re: STATE VERSUS CHETAN BHARDWAJ Date of Institution of Case : 19.08.2000 Date of Judgment Reserved for : 04.08.2010 Date of Judgment : 04.08.2010 JUDGMENT:
(a) The serial no. of the case : 2478/2/08 (b) The date of commission of offence : 10.08.2000 (c) The name of complainant : Ct. [ENTITY] (d) The name, parentage, : [ENTITY] of accused [ENTITY], S/o Sh. [ENTITY], R/o E 2/409, Sultan Puri, Delhi. Present Address : As above (e) The offence complained of : U/[SECTION] of [ACT] (f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty (g) The final order : Acquitted (h) The date of such order : 04.08.2010 Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 10.08.2000 at about 3.00 PM at Sultanpuri Mod, Main Rohtak Road, Nangloi, Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Nangloi, accused [ENTITY] was found in possession of knife (chura) without any permit or license which he was waving in the air and was pointing it towards the police persons and thereby the accused committed offence u/[SECTION] of [ACT].
2. Charge sheet was filed in the court and in compliance of [SECTION] [ACT] documents was supplied to the accused and thereafter, vide order dated 11.10.2000, charge u/[SECTION] of [ACT] was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined four witnesses, whereafter the PE in the matter was closed and the statement of accused u/[SECTION] [ACT] was recorded on 04.08.2010 wherein he claimed himself to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case. However, he did not offer to lead any evidence in his defence.
A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
4. PW 1 Ct. [ENTITY] deposed that on 10.08.2000 while he along with Ct. [ENTITY] and Ct. [ENTITY] were present at Sultanpuri Mode and they were checking the vehicle at about 3:00 p.m., a Maruti Van no. DDU-8545 came from Peeragarhi side and five boys were traveling in that Maruti Van and same turned towards Sultanpuri side. He further deposed that he signaled the marutiv van to stop. He further deposed that he came near the van and opened its right side back gate of the Van and one boy namely [ENTITY] took out his Deshi katta but he gave a danda blow on his right hand as a result the katta fell down in the vehicle and he immediately caught/apprehended by him. Ct. [ENTITY] apprehended [ENTITY] (correctly identified). He further deposed that accused [ENTITY] was having knife in his possession and he telephoned the PS and HC [ENTITY], HC [ENTITY] and SI [ENTITY] came at the spot. He further deposed that HC [ENTITY] investigated the case and prepared its documents and recorded his statement. He further deposed that IO HC [ENTITY] prepared the sketch memo of the knife and sealed the same and seizure memo was prepared.
During his cross examination he stated that the direction for checking of vehicles were given to them by the SHO. He further stated that after departure from PS for checking they made entry in DD register but today he has not brought the said DD. He denied the suggestion that no direction from SHO and no DD entry was made before departure. He further stated that colour of Maruti van was white and he can give the name of five persons who were traveling in the said van i.e. namely [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and remaining he does not remember. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered in his presence, nor he stopped any van and checked the same at the spot. He further stated that when the accused [ENTITY] was apprehended by Ct. [ENTITY] he saw him. He denied the suggestion that [ENTITY] was not present there. He further denied the suggestion that he did not make any call to PS Nangloi. He further denied the suggestion that HC [ENTITY], SI [ENTITY] and HC [ENTITY] came at the spot. He further denied the suggestion that SI [ENTITY] conducted all the proceeding there. He further denied the suggestion that all proceedings were completed in the PS and nothing could be done at the spot.
5. PW 2 Ct. [ENTITY] deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW1. He deposed that he apprehended accused [ENTITY] (correctly identified) along with a knife and in the meanwhile, Ct. [ENTITY] telephoned PS Nangloi upon which HC [ENTITY] came at the spot. He further deposed that HC [ENTITY] recorded his statement as Ex.PW2/A and prepared the ruqqa. IO measured the knife and found same was 37.2 Cm out of which the handle was 12.2 and blade was 25 Cm and width of blade is 5.2 Cm and prepared the sketch memo of the same as Ex. PW2/B. He further deposed that same was kept in the white cloth and sealed with the seal of ZSS, seal after use was handed over to him. Seizure memo of knife was prepared as Ex. PW2/C and IO handed over the ruqqa for registration of the case and then he went to PS and after registration of case he came back at the spot along with ruqqa and copy of FIR and same was handed over to IO. He further deposed that accused [ENTITY] was arrested vide personal search memo Ex. PW2/D and IO recorded his statement.
This witness duly identified the case property as Ex. P-1. During his cross examination he stated that they were checking the vehicles on the direction of SHO but again said that he does not remember on whose direction they were checking the vehicles on that day but they made DD entry. He denied the suggestion that there was no such orders nor were they were checking the vehicles at Sultanpuri. He further stated that he cannot tell the names of two persons who ran away towards Sultanpuri. He further denied the suggestion that no such van came from Peeragarhi side nor the alleged five persons were travelling in the said van. He further denied the suggestion that he apprehended the accused [ENTITY] at the spot. Ct. [ENTITY] made telephone call to PS at about 3:00 p.m. and HC [ENTITY] came at the spot after 10/15 minutes of call but he does not remember the exact time. He further stated that the knife was measured with the help of scale which was procured from the nearby shop but he does not remember the name of the owner of the shop however, again said that the scale was brought by the son of [ENTITY] who was the resident of same locality or nearby house. He further stated that no public person was present when the investigation was done by the IO and IO asked the name from the public persons but they refused to tell their names. He further stated that he does not remember the time when IO handed over to him ruqqa. He further stated that the distance between PS and the spot was about 100/150 meters and he handed over the ruqqa to DO but he does not remember his name now. He further stated that he does not remember whether DO to whom he handed over the ruqqa has been transferred from PS Nangloi or not and DO took about 30/35 minutes to register the FIR and he does not remember when he reached at the spot along with the copy of FIR and original ruqqa. He denied the suggestion that no proceeding was done at the spot or that all the writing work was completed while sitting in the PS. He denied the suggestion that no knife was recovered from the possession of accused [ENTITY]. He further denied the suggestion that knife Ex. P-1 was falsely planted upon the accused [ENTITY] after calling him in PS. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being the police witness. He further denied the suggestion that IO had called the accused at PS and accused was arrested there.
6. PW3 [ENTITY] deposed that on 10.08.2000 while he was posted at PS Nangloi on receipt of ruqqa sent by [ENTITY] through Ct. [ENTITY], he recorded case FIR no. 677/00 as Ex. PW3/A. During his cross examination he stated that Ct. [ENTITY] was on duty at [ENTITY] on that day but he did not brought any documents regarding the said fact. [ENTITY] was brought by Ct. [ENTITY] at around 5:25 p.m. He further stated that distance between Sultanpuri Mode and PS Nangloi was about 5 minutes, he took about 35 minutes in preparation of FIR. He further denied the suggestion that Ct. [ENTITY] was not on duty for checking the vehicles at Sultanpuri Mode on that day.
7. PW4 Ct. [ENTITY] deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW1 and PW4 and deposed that IO recorded his statement.
During his cross examination he stated that the incident occurred on 10.08.2000 at about 3 p.m. and they were deputed for vehicle checking duty at Sultanpuri mode. He further stated that he did not bring any documents showing that their duty were for vehicle checking on that day. He denied the suggestion that they were not assigned the duty for vehicle checking. He further stated that it was a white colour Maruti Van whose number was DDV-8545. He further stated that there were 5 persons sitting in the car, 3 persons were sitting on the backside of the car and 2 persons were sitting on front seat. He further stated that he cannot tell the names of accused who were sitting in front seat but he remembers the name of 2 accused persons who were sitting on the back seat i.e accused [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. He admitted that accused had stopped the van at their own but the signal was given by Ct [ENTITY]. He further stated that Ct. [ENTITY] got opened the left side door and two of the accused persons opened the door of one side and fled from the spot towards Sultanpuri, one accused out of them was sitting on the front seat and other one was sitting on the back seat. He further stated that they did not run or chase those fleeing accused persons. One of the accused alighted from the van and pointed a katta towards Ct. [ENTITY] but he does not remember the side. He further stated that he did not write any DD entry regarding the vehicle checking duty for that particular day and departure entry was made in rojnamcha however, he does not remember the number of the same. He stated that five boys were present in the van. He stated that [ENTITY] was sitting on the front seat of the van and before he showed the katta some talks took place between him and Ct. [ENTITY] but he does not know the contents of the talks. He denied the suggestion that [ENTITY] did not show any katta to Ct. [ENTITY] or that he did not attach him. He denied the suggestion that no such incident took place or that they had no orders of checking the vehicles. He further stated that police i.e. SI [ENTITY], HC [ENTITY] and HC [ENTITY] reached at the spot within five minutes. He admitted that the spot was a busy public place with several shops nearby and he did not call any public person. He further stated that IO might had called the public persons to join the investigation. He stated that the knives were made of iron but he cannot tell whether they were new or old. He further stated that [ENTITY] got opened the door of left side of the van and nobody received any injuries in this incident. He further stated that they were not medically examined and he knew that two cases were framed out of this incident and he is the witness in both the cases. He further stated that he was examined by the IO on the spot. He denied the suggestion that no incident happened and no knife was recovered from the accused [ENTITY]. He further denied the suggestion that accused [ENTITY] was called from the home and the knife was planted at the PS. He denied the suggestion that the main issue was red light jumping and for which they were demanding Rs. 200/- from the accused persons for the violation of the red light and since accused did not pay the said amount therefore, they falsely implicated the accused persons in the present matter. He denied the suggestion that since it was a false case hence, no public witnesses were joined in this case as witnesses. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
8. This so far is the prosecution evidence.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced at bar by the learned defence counsel as also learned APP and have carefully gone through the evidence recorded in the matter and the documents placed on record by the prosecution in this case.
10. After going through the rival contentions as raised by Ld. Defence counsel as well as the APP for the state, as well as after going through the evidence led by the prosecution and the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused.
11. The alleged place of recovery was a busy public place surrounded by numerous shops, admittedly, many public persons were also present at the time of alleged incident however, the police officials failed to join any public witness.
12. In the case titled as [PRECEDENT] which was also the case under [ACT], while acquitting the accused due to absence/ non-joining of public witness the Court observed as under:
"The question is not whether the testimony of police officers should or should not be approached with a suspicion. The question is of being conscious of an inherent danger that is involved in relying upon the evidence of police officers only unless it is supported by some corroborative evidence or unless circumstances of the case sufficiently lend assurance to the court that all that is being stated by the police officers is correct. Normally speaking when a raid of this kind is arranged one should expect the police officer to involve independent witnesses. In this case the court is told that an effort was made but nobody came forward. It has been my unfortunate experience that this explanation is now being tendered in almost all cases. Normal rule is the involvement of public witnesses and if that is not followed it must be sufficiently explained as to why it was not so".
13. Similar observation was made by the Hon'ble Apex court in [PRECEDENT].
14. I have also gone through the observations made in 1990 CCC 3 , titled as [PRECEDENT] wherein it was held as under:
When some witness from the public was available then the explanation furnished by the prosecution that they refused to join the investigation is wholly unsatisfactory, particularly when the IO did not note down the names and addresses and did not take any action against them .
15. In the landmark judgment of [PRECEDENT] while acquitting the accused the Hon'ble High Court Of Delhi observed:
FIR No. 677/00 10/ 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 then they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again, churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola.
16. Similar observations were made in case titled as [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], Passi @ [ENTITY] v. State of Haryana (P&H) 2000(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 431, [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] as well as [PRECEDENT].
17. The learned defence counsel has submitted that even the notification has not been proved by the prosecution as none from the office of the DCP was examined, which itself is fatal for the prosecution case. It is also pointed out that the place of alleged recovery was a busy public place but as is evident from the deposition of the PWs no sincere effort was made by the police officials to join any public witness which is further evident from the fact that no action was taken against those who refused to join. He has placed FIR No. 677/00 11/ reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in [PRECEDENT] wherein it was observed that:
"It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the IO should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witness. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of knife from the person of accused."
18. In this case on the recovery memo and the sketch of knife i.e Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C the F.I.R. No. finds mention and it has not been explained by the prosecution that how the FIR number was written on the said documents as admittedly these documents were prepared before the registration of F.I.R. In the case of [PRECEDENT] it was observed that when documents are prepared before registration of F.I.R. and it contains the F.I.R. No. then inference has to be drawn that either F.I.R. was recorded prior in time or the documents were prepared later on and in such cases benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused.
19. In the present case, no efforts were made to hand over the seal after use to independent public persons and it remained with the officials of the Police Station only. In such cases in view of the case titled as [PRECEDENT] and ABDUL GAFFAR VS.
FIR No. 677/00 12/ STATE 1996 JCC 497 (DELHI) benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused.
20. In the present case apart from the non-joining of public witnesses, the prosecution story does not inspire any confidence. The prosecution version that the accused was armed with knife along with other accused against whom separate FIR was registered does not seems to be plausible as if in fact, the accused persons were really armed with such weapons. Under no circumstances, they would have stopped the Maruti van on mere pointing of Ct. [ENTITY]. They would have not taken such a risk once they were armed with such weapons and their natural reaction would have been to flee away from the spot at that moment. No attempt was made by the accused persons to escape, no one was injured in the scuffle. This all seems so unrealistic.
21. Though, Ct. [ENTITY] submitted that the scale for measuring the knife was brought from the shop of a pandit ji however, the name of the said pandit ji neither appears in the list of witness nor in the case file. If in fact he was really at the spot and a witness to the alleged incident, I find no reasons why IO did not join him in the investigation.
22. Lastly the departure and arrival of the police officials to the police station have not been proved by the prosecution to lend credence to the version of the prosecution. Even it could not be established that the police officials as claimed by them were in fact on vehicle checking duty or not.
FIR No. 677/00 13/ All these contradiction casts serious doubts on the prosecution story.
23. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the accused [ENTITY] beyond the shadow of doubt. Accused [ENTITY] is accordingly entitled for acquittal. I order accordingly. Surety bonds and bail bonds are cancelled. Endorsements, if any on the documents of surety be cancelled forthwith. Original documents if any be returned as per rules and procedure. No further orders are required to be passed in the matter. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open ([ENTITY]) Court on 04.08.2010 MM (West)/Delhi FIR No. 677/00 14/ PS. Nangloi 04.08.2010 Pr: Ld APP for the state. Accused present on bail along with his counsel.
PW 4 Ct. [ENTITY] is present. He has been cross examined and discharged.
No other PW is present.
I have perused the records as well as gone through my last order, matter is already 10 years old. Enough opportunities have already been granted to the prosecution. Though, Ld. APP has requested for continuation of trial however, in my opinion, prosecution was granted sufficient opportunities to lead its evidence. Trial cannot be allowed to continue till eternity. Accused has already suffered the agony of protracted trial for 10 long years. Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right. Speedy justice is the mandate of the [ACT]. Every citizen has a right of speedy trial of the case pending against him. The speedy trial was considered also in public interest as it serves the social interest also. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would fall foul of [SECTION]. (1993 AIR SCW 248). Reliance may also be placed upon the law laid down in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
Accordingly, request of the Ld. APP is declined.
PE stands closed.
S.A. has been recorded wherein he has stated that he does not want to lead any evidence in his defence and Ld. Counsel has submitted that he is ready with final arguments.
Final arguments heard.
Vide my separate judgment announced today in the open court, accused has been acquitted of the charges in the present case.
Bail bond cancelled, surety discharged, endorsement if any be cancelled, original documents be returned as per rules and procedure.
File be consigned to Record Room.
([ENTITY]) MM (w)/Delhi/04.08.2010 FIR No. 677/00 16/