Look Into Anomalies In Maintaining ‘Asla Registers’ In Police Stations: Delhi High Court To Commissioner Of Police

The Delhi High Court has asked the Commissioner of Delhi Police to look into the anomalies in maintaining the “Asla registers”, which contain details of issuance and return of arms, in all the police stations.

A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba passed the order while setting aside the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life awarded to a policeman for murdering one Jai Kumar.

The bench observed that the prosecution was unable to prove that the policeman committed the murder beyond reasonable doubt and ordered for his release forthwith, if not required in any other case.

“Copy of this judgment be also sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to look into the anomalies in maintaining the Asla registers at the police stations,” the court ordered.

Surender Kumar Mathur, the policeman, was convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and section 27 of Arms Act in an FIR registered in 2009.

It was the prosecution’s case that a dead body was found in a pool of blood in the kitchen of a flat in Rohini with bullet injury on the body. Three fired leads and two empty cartridges were lying near the body. The deceased was later identified by his father who stated that he had suspicion on Mathur who was a constable in Delhi Police. Mathur was then interrogated by an inspector and he was arrested on January 21, 2013.

It was submitted on behalf of Mathur that there was no motive for him to commit the murder and that even the identity of the deceased was not established by the prosecution.

It was submitted that Mathur was not in possession of the pistol on the date of incident. It was contended that there was no conclusive evidence to say that he was in possession of the alleged weapon either on December 02, 2009 or on the intervening night of December 02 and 03, 2009, the date of incident.

Mathur’s counsel submitted that as per the Asla register, the pistol was issued to Mathur on November 07, 2009, and thereafter on November 14, November 24 and December 03, 2009.

On the other hand, it was the prosecution’s case that the pistol was issued to Mathur on November 07, 2009, which remained in his possession till December 03, 2009, on which day the pistol was returned and the entry in the arms register was struck off. It was contended that as per the handwriting expert’s opinion, the signature on the arms register tallied with Mathur’s specimen signature.

Ruling in favour of Mathur, the court observed that the Asla Register was maintained in a “very haphazard manner” and there was “no set procedure” for recording either the issuance of a weapon or ammunition or its continued possession with any officer or when it was returned.

“Whenever the weapon was returned, the entry of issuance of weapon was simply struck off without noting any time and date of return. If any weapon was not returned, the previous entry was struck off and was carried forward to a subsequent date, but without the signature of the concerned police officer to whom weapon was issued,” the court noted.

Observing further that it is difficult to place reliance on the Asla Register as it is, the bench said that the prosecution was unable to prove that Mathur had committed the murder of deceased beyond reasonable doubt.

“Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case,” the court said.

Referring to the post-mortem report, the bench said that the doctor did not opine anything regarding the time of death. It noted that it was only in the subsequent opinion that the time of death was opined to be eight to nine days.

“In his cross-examination, PW-28 stated that the time since death may also be nine to ten days. Therefore, in light of these facts, the exact time of death is not ascertainable. Hence, it is not proved that the murder was committed when the appellant left the picket,” the bench said.

Advocates Kanhaiya Singhal, Prasanna, Udit Bakshi, Jasmeet Singh, Ajay Kumar and Ujwal Ghai appeared for the appellant. APP Laksh Khanna represented the State.

Title: SURENDER KUMAR MATHUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 301

Click Here To Read Order