( 1 ) IN pursuance of the registration of a case FIR No. 25/84 at Police Station Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, accused Gopi, Pawan Kumar, Chhote and Hari Ram were arrested and charged to stand trial for the offence u/s. 302 read with S. 34, I. P. C. for causing the death of Chander, near bus-stop of D. T. C. , Yamuna Bazar, Delhi. Accused Pawan Kumar and Chhote were separately charged for the commission of an offence u/s. 25 of the Arms Act in case F. I. R. No. 36/84 of Police Station Jama Masjid Both these cases were consolidated by order dated 6-9-1984 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, on account of the fact that recovery of knife from the accused, Pawan was alleged to be connected with offence u/s. 302 read with S. 34. I. P. C.

( 2 ) BY the detailed order dated 19-2-1987 all the accused were acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt of the offences u/s. 302 read with S. 34 I. P. C. However, on the testimony of PW 15, Kalam Singh, PW-11, Jagbir Singh and PW-21, S. I. Kanchan Dev, accused Pawan Kumar was convicted for the offence u/s. 25 of the Arms Act. He was sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of five years. However, he was held entitled to the benefit of S. 428 Cr. P. C. in respect of the period he had already undergone. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that the accused Pawan Kumar has filed the present appeal through jail Miss Urmil Khanna, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to defend the accused in this appeal and assist the Court.

( 3 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned lower Court has relied upon the evidence of the police officials insofar as the recovery of the knife is concerned. No public witness was joined even though the place of arrest was a main thoroughfare and number of persons were present. Her further submission is that the case property is not the same which was allegedly recovered from the person of Pawan Kumar at the time of his arrest. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the State is that all the documents were prepared at the time of the recovery of knife, the authenticity of which cannot be doubted. According to him, there is nothing wrong in relying upon the statement of the Police Officials who happened to be present at the time of the arrest of the accused and recovery of weapon of offence from the person of the accused.

( 4 ) I have given my anxious thought to the problem which has arisen in this case. So far the recovery of the knife is concerned a doubt is created in my mind if at all it is the same which was taken into possession from the accused. In the sketch plan alleged to have been prepared at the spot, the blade is shown as 5. 5" long whereas the dasta (grip) is 6. 5" in length. Same length is, shown in the recovery memo, Ex. PW 11/d as well as the ruqa, PW 11/f, which was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case. From the careful perusal of these three documents is no doubt is left in my mind that there is some overwriting in the measurement of knife shown in these documents. Though it cannot be said with certainty as to what was its original length shown in these documents but even the learned counsel for the State has no plausible explanation of this overwriting.

( 5 ) FURTHERMORE, in the recovery memo, the description of the knife is shown on the blade as "b. M. Rampur, U. P. ". Same words were repeated in the ruqa, which was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case and naturally the same wording was incorporated in the First Information Report Ex. PW. 11/g. Unfortunately, these words do not find mention in the sketch plan of the knife. On the blade, only "rampur" is written whereas the words "b. M. " and "u. P. " are missing. These two dicrepancies go to show that the knife shown to have been recovered from the accused at the time of his arrest is not the same which was deposited in the Malkhana as the case property. This aspect can also be looked into from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document