Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C.C. No.2222/PW/2021
MHMM180052792021 Received on : 13/10/2021
Registered on : 13/10/2021
Decided on : 02/05/2022
Duration : 00 Y. 06 M. 19 D.
Exh.No.- 09
Accused produced on Video Conference
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
09TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
(Presided over by K.H. Thombre)
JUDGMENT
(As per Section 355 of Code of Criminal Procedure)
a) The Serial number of the case : C.C. No.2222/PW/2021
b) The date of commission of
offence
: 05/09/2021
c) The name of the complainant if
any
: The State through Khar police
station. Spl.L.A.C.No.83/2021.
d) The name of the accused persons,
parentage and residence
: Ramfuang @ Ram Urengam
Duidang, Age – 25 years,
Occupation- Nil
R/o. Footpath Opp. Hindu
Crematory, Khardanda, Khar(W),
Mumbai
e) The offence complained of or
proved
: Under section 4, 25 of Indian Arms
Act r.w. 37 (a), 135 of Maharashtra
Police Act.
f) The plea of the accused and his
examination, if any
: Accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
g) The Final Order : The accused is acquitted.
h) The date of such order : 02/05/2022
..2/-
-- 1 of 6 --
Judgment 2 C.C. No.2222/PW/2021
=====================================================
Learned counsel for Prosecution: APP Smt.MF Pakajade for State
Ld. Counsel for Accused : Adv. Mr.P.P.Khot
=====================================================
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 02/05/2022)
1) The above named accused is charged for the offence punishable
under section 4, 25 of Indian Arms Act r.w. 37(a), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.
2) The prosecution has examined in all three witnesses i.e. (P.W.No.1)
Ajit Mahadeo Jadhav, informant (Exh.04), (P.W.No.2) Sachin Dalpat Katkar
(Exh.04) and (P.W.No.3) Santosh Rajeshwar Soni at (Exh.08) .
3) Considering the evidence and arguments of the parties, following
points arose for determination. Findings are recorded for reasons to follow.
Sr.No POINTS FINDINGS
1] Whether the prosecution proved that on
05/09/2021 at about 00.25 hrs. at Footpath
Opp. Hindu Crematory, Khardanda, Khar(W),
Mumbai accused found in possession of one
big knife 34 inches in length in contravention
of Section 4 of Indian Arms Act thereby
committed an offence punishable under
Section 25 of Indian Arms Act?
In the negative
2] Whether the prosecution proved that on the
aforesaid date, time and place accused was
found in possession of aforesaid knife in
contravention of order of Commissioner of
Police issued under Section 37 of Maharashtra
Police Act on prohibition for carrying arms
thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 135 of Maharashtra Police Act?
In the negative
3] What order? Accused is acquitted.
R E A S O N S
..3/-
-- 2 of 6 --
Judgment 3 C.C. No.2222/PW/2021
AS TO POINT NO.1 TO 3:
4) In order to prove the offence against the accused (P.W.1) Ajit
Jadhav deposed that on 04/09/2021 he was in combing operation as per orders
of his seniors, during patrolling they saw one person was running at midnight
from footpath of Hindu Crematory at Khardanda. Due to suspicion they arrested
that person. According to( P.W.2) Sachin Katkar he was appointed in Crime
Detection Squad, accompanied by police constable Mr. Mohite and Mr. Jadhav.
At about 12.25 a.m. while on patrolling, one person started running by seeing
them at Carter Road behind Hindu Crematory. They caught hold that person.
According to both these witnesses they caught hold one person near Hindu
Crematory. The person caught hold is the accused. There is no cross-
examination on this point by the accused.
5) It is proved from the evidence of these two witness that on
04/09/2021 after 12.00 a.m. they caught hold the accused while he was
running. There is contradiction in the evidence of( P.W.1) Ajit and (P.W.2 )
Sachin about place of arrest of the accused. According to (P.W.1) Ajit they saw
accused at Hindu Crematory, Khardanda running from footpath while according
to (P.W.2) Sachin they saw accused at carter road behind Hindu Crematory.
According to (P.W.1) Ajit, PSI Katkar sent one Police Naik to call panchas and
material of sealing. They got suspicion that something has been concealed by the
accused behind his back. (P.W.2) Sachin deposed that only panchas were called
as they have doubt on the person. The evidence of these two witness is not in
complete corroboration to each other.
6) After panchas were called as per evidence of (P.W.1) Ajit and
(P.W.2) Sachin, personal search of the accused was taken and one knife was
found behind the back of the accused which was seized in their presence and in
presence of panchas. (P.W.1) Ajit deposed that knife was of 20 inches. (P.W.2)
Sachin deposed that knife of 14 inches having wooden handle was seized. The
evidence of both the witnesses is not in corroboration to each other about size of
..4/-
-- 3 of 6 --
Judgment 4 C.C. No.2222/PW/2021
the seized knife.
7) Independent witness (P.W.3) Santosh Soni deposed that he was
called behind crematory, Khada Maidan, accused was present there, on personal
search one knife was found behind the back which was seized by the police.
(P.W.3) Santosh Soni stated that panchanama (Exh.7) was prepared in his
presence by packing the knife. (P.W.3) Santosh Soni is silent about size of knife
and description of the knife which was allegedly seized.
8) About description of the knife allegedly seized, evidence of
prosecution witness is not in corroboration to each other. No consistent evidence
is given by the prosecution witnesses about the place from where the accused
was arrested and knife was seized. Single consistent evidence that knife was
seized from the accused is not sufficient and trustworthy when there is no
corroboration about description and place from where it was seized.
9) The charge against the accused is under Section 4 punishable under
Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. As per Section 4 of the Indian Arms Act a
notification is required to be issued describing prohibition on possession of
weapon without licence. It is also provided under section 4 of the Indian Arms
Act that the description of the weapon is to be mentioned on which prohibition is
imposed for its possession. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the
place from where the alleged weapon is seized from the possession of the
accused was a prohibited area at the time of alleged seizure of knife. The burden
is also on the prosecution to prove that the alleged knife which is seized from the
possession of the accused is within the category of prohibited weapon described
under the notification issued under Section 4 of the Indian Arms Act. The
prosecution failed to file on record any notification prohibiting area as well as a
particular category of weapon prohibited by way of an notification issued under
Section 4 of the Indian Arms Act. In absence of the said notification no
conclusion can be drawn that accused possessed alleged knife in contravention
..5/-
-- 4 of 6 --
Judgment 5 C.C. No.2222/PW/2021
of Section 4 of the Indian Arms Act. It is also not deposed by any of the witness
that for possession of the alleged knife a licence is required under Section 4 of
the Indian Arms Act.
10) Another charge against the accused is that he found in possession
of weapon in contravention of the order issued by Commissioner of Police,
Brihan Mumbai. Both the witnesses failed to depose that at the time of alleged
seizure of knife from the accused an order of Commissioner of Police, Brihan
Mumbai was in force. It is also provided that any order issued by the
Commissioner of Police that order has to be promulgated and should be known
to the public. The evidence that such order has been promulgated to make
known to the public is absent on record. It is the burden on the prosecution to
place on record admissible copy of order of Police Commissioner to show that at
the time of alleged seizure of knife from the accused such order was in force.
Prosecution failed to file or to prove that the order issued by the Commissioner
of Police was in force at the relevant time.
11) As per evidence of P.W.1 Ajit Jadhav and P.W.2 Sachin Katkar
accused was caught hold as he was running, then one constable was sent to bring
panchas and one constable was sent to bring the articles of sealing. After panchas
and articles came at the place they took personal search of the accused and one
knife was found concealed under shirt behind back of the accused. The alleged
seized knife is not produced during the trial before the Court to establish that it
was seized, what was the length and breadth of knife. In absence of clear and
independent evidence no conclusion can be drawn that possession of the knife
has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
12) Prosecution failed to file on record notification under Section 4 of
the Indian Arms Act and order issued by Commissioner of Police prohibiting
possession of alleged seized knife. The possession of the knife from the accused
is also not proved. Prosecution evidence is not in corroboration to each other
..6/-
-- 5 of 6 --
Judgment 6 C.C. No.2222/PW/2021
about size of knife and place of arrest of the accused at the relevant time. For
these reasons accused cannot be held guilty of the charge levelled against him .
For these reasons following order is passed.
O R D E R
1) The accused Ramfuang @ Ram Urengam Duidang acquitted of
the offence punishable under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act and under Section
135 of Maharashtra Police Act vide Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2) The accused is in jail. He be released forthwith if, not required in
any other offence. Inform the Jail Authority accordingly.
3) The accused to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437(A)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Jail Authority is directed to release the
accused on executing P.R.Bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) and
to submit the report accordingly to this Court.
4) Seized knife be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Brihan
Mumbai for disposal according to law after appeal period.
5) The copy of the Judgment be forwarded to District Magistrate vide
Sec.365 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for further compliance.
6) Dictated on computer and pronounced on Video Conference in the
open court.
Date:-02/05/2022. (K.H.Thombre)
Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
09th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Delivered on: 02/05/2022
Dictated on : 02/05/2022
Typed on : 02/05/2022
Signed on : 02/05/2022
vnh
../-
-- 6 of 6 --