Delhi District CourtState Of Punjab vs . Gurmel Singh 1991 (2) Recent Criminal on 5 November, 20091

           IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH
          METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : NEW DELHI

                                                              FIR No. 340/02
                                                          PS Malviya Nagar
                                                      U/s 25/54/59Arms ActState v. Dalip Singh

JUDGMENT :a. Sl. No. of the case                   :    104/3
b. Date of Institution                   :    16.08.2002
c. Date of Commission of Offence          :   16.04.2002

d. Name of the complainant               :    S.I. Vijay Sangwal
                                              No. 3576/D, PS Malviya
                                              Nagar, New Delhi

e. Name of the accused and his           :    Dalip Singh
  parentage and address                       S/o Sh. Brahma Singh
                                              R/o 9/131, Khichripur, Kalyan
                                              Puri, New Delhi

f. Offence complained of             :        U/s 25/54/59Arms Actg. Plea of the accused               :        Pleaded not guilty
h. Order reserved                     :       05.11.2009
i. Final Order                           :    Acquitted
j. Date of such order                 :       05.11.2009Brief reasons for the decision of the case.1.                       The case of the prosecution in brief is that on
16.04.2002, at about 9.20 p.m., near Ganda Nala Pul, Chirag Delhi2Village, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S.

Malviya Nagar, H.C. Narender Singh alongwith S.I. Vijay

Sangwal, H.C. Sultan Singh and Ct.. Raj Kishore was on

patrolling duty and on suspicion, H.C. Narender and SI Vijay
Sangwal apprehended the accused and on his casual search one
buttondar knife was recovered. Thereafter FIR No. 340/02 was

registered in the P.S. Malviya Nagar against the accused U/s
25/54/59Arms Act. Statement of witnesses were recorded, site
plan was prepared, accused was arrested and after completion of
all necessary investigation challan U/s 173Cr.P.Cwas presented
in the Court for trial.2.                   Accused was summoned by the court to face
trial, so copy of challan as required U/s 207Cr.P.C. was supplied
to him, thereafter case was fixed for consideration of charge.3.                   After hearing arguments and on perusal of
record, prima facie offence undersection 25Arms Act, was made
out against the accused Dalip Singh. Charge was framed
accordingly against the accused on 09.01.2004. Thereafter case
was fixed for prosecution evidence.34.                 Prosecution has produced and examined as
many as three witnesses      i.e, H.C. Narender Singh as PW1,
S.I.Vijay Sangwal as PW2 and H.C. Bharat Singh as PW3.4A.                PW1 H.C. Narender Singh testified that on
16.04.2002, he alongwith S.I. Vijay Sangwal, H.C. Sultan Singh
and Ct.. Raj Kishore was on patrolling duty in the area of Chirag
Delhi, Ganda Nala and they saw two persons coming from Outer
Ring Road side who on seeing them tried to slip from the spot. So
S.I. Vijay Sangwal asked them to stop but they started running.
After chasing about 50-60 paces he and SI Vijay Sangwal
apprehended the accused and on casual search of accused,
S.I.Vijay Sangwal recovered one buttondar knife from the right
pocket of his pant. PW1 further testified that sketch of knife was
pepared by SI Vijay Sangwal with its measurement Ex.PW1/A
thereafter the knife was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of SPS
vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B.        PW1 further testified that seal
after use was handed over to him by I.O. He further testified that
I.O. prepared the rukka and handed over to him for registration of
F.I.R. PW1 further testified that he got the F.I.R. registered and
came back at the spot. Thereafter accused was arrested and his
personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW1/C and4PW1/D. He further testified that I.O. prepared the site plan and
recorded his statement. PW1 identified the case property i.e. knife
Ex. P1.4B.                PW2 S.I. Vijay Sangwal testified that on
16.04.2002, he alongwith H.C. Sultan Singh, Ct.. Narender and
Ct.. Raj Kishore was on patrolling duty in the area near Ganda
Nala where he noticed that two persons were coming from Outer
Ring Road side who on seeing them tried to slip from the spot. He
alongwith Ct.. Narender apprehended one of the accused namely
Dalip Singh and another one was apprehended by H.C. Sultan
Singh and Ct.. Raj Kishore whose name was disclosed as Akeel.
PW2 further testified that he conducted the casual search of
accused Dalip Singh and one buttondar knife was recovered from
his right side pant pocket. He opened the knife and prepared the
sketch of same with its measurement Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter the
knife was sealed in the pullanda with the seal of SPS and seized
vide memo Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter he prepared the tehrir Ex.
PW2/A and got the F.I.R. registered through PW1. Thereafter
Ct..Narender/PW1 came back on spot with the original tehrir and
copy of F.I.R. alongwith H.C. Bharat. He further testified that

H.C. Bharat prepared the site plan at his instance. PW2 further5testified that accused was arrested and his personal search was
conducted vide memos Ex. PW1/C and PW1/D. PW2 also identified
the knife which is Ex. As P1.In his cross-examination, PW2 testified that he
did not remember     whether he made DD entry        in P.S. while
leaving for patrolling duty. He further testified that there was no
crowd on Nala at that time and no passer by crossing there at that
time.4C.                PW3 H.C. Bharat Singh testified that on
16.04.2002, after receiving the copy of F.I.R. and original rukka
from PW1/Ct.. Narender, he alongwith PW1/Ct. Narender reached
at the spot at Ganda Nala, near Chirag Delhi Village, Malviya
Nagar where S.I. Vijay Sangwal handed over him the knife duly
sealed with the seal of SPS, seizure memo and sketch alongwith
accused Dalip Singh. PW3 further testified that he prepared the
site plan Ex. PW3/A at the instance of S.I.Vijay Sangwal.
Thereafter accused was arrested and his personal search was
conducted vide memos Ex. PW1/C and PW1/D respectively.In his cross-examination, PW3 testified that he
had not filed any DD entry      regarding departure of S.I. Vijay
Sangwal/PW2 with the judicial file. He further testified that there6are no signs on site plan of PW2/SI Vijay5.                 Statement of accused Dalip Singh was recorded
U/s 281Cr.P.Cwherein he has denied the allegations of the
prosecution and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in this case. However, accused did not prefer to lead
any defence evidence.6.                 I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld.
Counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the entire
record and the relevant provisions of the law.7.                 On careful perusal and analysis of the entire
evidence on record I find that no corroborative, consistent reliable
and sufficient evidence to make up the edifice of the prosecution
case has been produced by the prosecution. Moreover, the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence.8.                 It is the case of prosecution that PW1 and PW2

alongwith H.C. Sultan and Ct. Raj Kishore were on patrolling
duty and PW1 and PW2 apprehended the accused near Ganda
Nala Pul, Chirag Delhi Village, Malviya Nagar, and PW27conducted the casual search of accused and one buttondar knife
was recovered by PW2. Thereafter he prepared the sketch of knife
with its measurement vide sketch Ex. PW1/A and got registered

the F.I.R. through PW1 who came on spot alongwith PW3 who
carried out further investigation of case and arrested the accused
vide memo Ex. PW1/C.9.                 The material witness of prosecution are PW1
and PW2 as they effected the recovery of buttondar knife from the
possession of accused and all the investigation of the case was
carried out in presence of PW1 by PW2 and PW3. According to
PW1 the knife was put into pullanda wich was sealed with the seal
of SPS and seal was handed over to him by PW2 but PW2 has not
testified a single word about handing over the seal to PW1. It is
pertinent to mention that according to PW3 and PW2, PW3 cane
on spot alongwith PW1 after registration of case and PW3 carried
our further investigation and arrested the accused vide memo Ex.
PW1/C but the testimony of PW1 was silent on this aspect. After
going throuhg the testimony of PW1 it is clear that PW3 was not
came on spot and did not carry out any investigation of the case.
In view of this, it is clear that either PW3 was not present on the
spot or the further investigation of this case has not been carried8out by PW3. In these circumstances, the testimony of PW1,2 and 3
can not be relied for the conviction of the accused.10.                 During the investigation of the case neither
public witnesses were joined nor seems to be any sincere efforts
made in this regard, when it was possible to do so this makes the
case of the prosecution weak and suspicious as PW2 testified that
they remained at spot for about 3/3.15 hours. This testimony of
PW2 is not corroborated with PW1 who has not deposed so. InState of Punjab vs. Gurmel Singh1991 (2) Recent Criminal
Reporters 361 Hon'ble Court held that : - " Where there were 20
shops nearby and the investigating officer had ample opportunity
to join independent witness statement of official witnesses would
not be sufficient to convict the accused. Contention of the
prosecution that the police officials had no ill will to involve the
accused in false case was repelled.''11.                 The perusal of the sketch of the knife Ex
PW1/A and seizure memo Ex PW1/B shows that FIR number is
mentioned therein. There is not a single word in the testimony of
PW1 and PW2 as to when and at what stage FIR number was
inserted in Ex PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. Moreover, the testimony of9PW3 is also totally silent on this aspect. In these circumstances,
either FIR was recorded posterior in time or that documents were
prepared after the recording of FIR.In caseMohd Hasim Vs. State1999 VI AD (Delhi) 569 (Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. A Siddiqui) it
was observed that documents prepared before registering the FIR
bears FIR numbers, meaning thereby either FIR was recorded
posterior in time or that documents were prepared after the
recording of FIR, and was hold that in both case, prosecution case
would collapse.12.                 Apart from this, the presence of PW1 and PW2
at the spot is not proved. If they had departed from P.S. for
patrolling duty, the entry to this effect must exist in the
Roznamcha but that has not been proved, raising an adverse
presumption against the prosecution U/s 114 (g) of theEvidence
Actand if the said Roznamcha had been produced it would have
not shown his departure at all.13.                 PW2 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that
the knife was sealed in the pullanda with the seal of SPS by him and
seal after use was given to PW1. His testimony is totally silent as to
whether any seal handing over memo or seal returning memo was
prepared. Why such memos were not prepared, which constitutes a10material link evidence. Such linking evidence is lacking in the
prosecution case.14.                   In these circumstances, the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence.15.                   It is true evidence it to be weighted and not
counted but in this case whatever evidence has been produced by the
prosecution is not sufficient to fortify the edifice of the prosecution case
and th prosecution has failed to prove all the links, the benefit of doubt
has been given to the accused.In view of this I am fortified with the
observations made in the caseState of Rajasthan Vs. Daulat Ram1980
CAR 169 (SC) where it was held that prosecution failed to proved all
the links. Accused was acquitted.16.                   In view of the above, I hold that prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused and he
is given the benefit of doubt and therefore accused Dalip Singh is
acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 25 of theArms Actfor which he
stands charged.Announced in the Open Court                 (RAVINDER SINGH)
On 05.11.2009                               Metropolitan Magistrate:
                                              New Delhi.11FIR No. 288/2007PS Malviya Nagar
U/s 25/54/59Arms Act05.11.2009

Present: Ld. APP for the state.
         Accused on bail.


         Final arguments heard.
         Put up for orders at 4.00 PM.


                                       (Ravinder Singh)
                                       MM//ND/ 05.11.09


At 4.00 p.m
Present: As beforeVide my separate judgment dictated and announced in
the open court accused Dalip Singh is acquitted for the offence
punishable U/s. 25 ofArms Actfor which he stands charged.Bail bond of accused is cancelled. Surety stands
discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to the concerned
person after cancellation of endorsements.File be consigned to Record Room.(Ravinder Singh)
                                       MM//ND/ 05.11.0912