A man accused of threatening the public with a dagger has been acquitted by a Delhi court, which said the possibility of the arm being planted by the police could not be ruled out.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate(CMM) Sonu Agnihotri absolved Delhi resident Ajay of the offence under section 27(punishment for using arms) of Arms Act, while noting that there were missing links in the probe, including non-inclusion of independent witnesses.
“I am of the view that planting of case property upon accused cannot be ruled out and there are missing links in the story of prosecution which makes recovery of alleged dagger from accused doubtful.
“It can be said that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt so far as offence under section 27 of Arms Act is concerned and present case is a fit case in which benefit of doubt deserves to be given to accused…Accused is therefore acquitted,” the CMM said.
The court also noted that there was “cutting/rewriting” over date of arrest of accused and time of arrest was filled in different ink.
“All this reduces trustworthiness of prosecution version and false implication of accused can’t be ruled out,” it said.
A complaint was lodged by a constable of Delhi Police alleging that on September 27, 2008 while he was on duty near Kalyan Puri here, he got a tip-off that the accused was threatening the public with a dagger and asking them for money.
When the cop went to apprehend him, the accused brandished the dagger but was overpowered and taken in custody, the complaint said.
The accused had denied the allegations, saying he was innocent and was falsely implicated by the cops as they had an objection to the construction of his house.
The court, while acquitting Ajay, noted that the details of the allegedly recovered dagger were missing from seizure memo, names of none of the persons who were allegedly threatened was mentioned and “Further,?no?public?witness?has? been?cited?in?list?of?witnesses filed?with?the?charge sheet.”
“It casts shadow of doubt on prosecution version. The Investigating Officer should have at least mentioned name of persons to whom accused threatened though the persons may not have given their statements…It would have lend credence to story of prosecution,” it said.