State Of Uttarakhand vs Adnan Ahmad

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present respondent - accused was convicted by learned Trial Court for the offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and he was sentenced which he already undergone and a fine of Rs.500/-.

Against the judgment dated 21.01.2006, passed by learned Trial Court, respondent – accused filed a Criminal Appeal (No. 33 of 2006). Accepting the Appeal on 17.07.2007, learned District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, set aside the judgment of learned Trial Court and acquitted the respondent of the charge of Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

According to the prosecution, on 11.12.1998, when Inspector Suresh Singh Chauhan (PW 1), informant, and other police personnel were present for a routine check and were searching for the wanted criminals, on the information of the secret informer, it was found that the respondent – accused was sitting in a car and uttering obscene words towards the passing girls. At that time, Inspector J.P. Juyal (PW 2) was also present. Respondent – accused was arrested at 06:00 P.M. During the search of the respondent – accused, a knife was recovered from his possession. The recovered knife was sealed. In spite of an endeavour, no public witness could be secured. The recovered knife was taken into possession vide Recovery Memo (Ex. Ka 1). An FIR was lodged by Inspector Suresh Singh Chauhan (PW 1). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Statement of the respondent – accused was recorded. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined Inspector Suresh Singh Chauhan (PW1) and Inspector J.P. Juyal (PW2).

Respondent - accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution.

Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General, contended that the case of the prosecution as narrated in the First Information Report, has been duly proved. Therefore, the impugned judgment is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law.

On the other hand, Mr. Naitik Bhatt, learned Amicus Curiae, has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the Government Appeal, filed against the acquittal of the present respondent in the connected matter under Section 294 IPC, has already been dismissed by this Court.

According to the prosecution, in spite of an endeavour, no public witness could be secured. The alleged incident took place around 06:00 P.M. Therefore, the contention of the prosecution that public witness could not be secured, is not found to be acceptable. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that if a public witness had been secured and examined by the prosecution, his evidence would not have supported the prosecution’s case.

On the examination and scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution, this Court upholds the view taken by learned Appellate Court. In my considered view, the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of alleged offence by the respondent – accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He deserves benefit of doubt. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, passed by learned Appellate Court.

Consequently, the instant Government Appeal is liable to be dismissed; the same is dismissed accordingly.