Delhi District Court
State vs . Azad & Anr. on 6 June, 2022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST):SAKET
COURTS:NEW DELHI
Presided by : Ms. SONAM SINGH-I
State vs. Azad & Anr.
FIR No. 278/2014
Police Station: Badarpur
Under Section: 186/353/332/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(in short "IPC")
Date of institution : 12.05.2015
Date of reserving : 07.05.2022
Date of pronouncement : 06.06.2022
JUDGMENT
a) The Serial number of : 02406R015285/2015 the case
b) Date of commission of : 11.05.2014 offence
c) Name of the : HC Vijay Bhatia complainant
d) Name, parentage and : (1) Azad s/o Mahender r/o H. address of the accused No. 221-A, Babu Colony, Badarpur, New Delhi.
At present-M-84, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, New Delhi-44.
(2) Inderjeet s/o Mahender r/o H. No. 221-A, Babu Colony, Badarpur, New Delhi.
At present- M-84, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, New Delhi
e) Offence complained of : Section 186/353/332/34 of the IPC State vs. Azad & Anr.
FIR No. 278/2014, P.S. Badarpur page 1 of 10
f) Plea of the accused : Accused persons pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Accused persons stand acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 186/353/332/34 IPC.
h) Date of final order : 06.06.2022 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. Vide this judgment, both the accused persons stand acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 186/353/332/34 IPC in this case for the reasons mentioned below:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is that on 11.05.2014, at about 10:45 am, at Jaitpur, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Badarpur, accused Azad and Inderjeet (hereinafter, referred to as accused persons) in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed public servant namely Head Constable Vijay Bhatia (hereinafter, referred to as 'the complainant') in discharge of his public function and thereby, committed an offence punishable U/s 186/34 IPC. Further, it is alleged that they assaulted the complainant, by using criminal force with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty as a public servant and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 353/34 IPC. It is State vs. Azad & Anr.
FIR No. 278/2014, P.S. Badarpur page 2 of 10 also alleged that the accused persons voluntarily also caused hurt to the complainant, while he was discharging his duty as a public servant and hence, also committed an offence punishable U/s 332/34 IPC.
3. The investigation was done by the IO/ASI Mahender Singh who filed the police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the offences punishable under Section 186/353/34 IPC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
4. The learned predecessor of this court took cognizance upon the said police report on 12.05.2015 and on 07.07.2015 accused persons were supplied with the copies of police report and documents.
CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 23.11.2015, the learned predecessor of this court framed the charge against both the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 186/353/332/34 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
6. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
(i) Prosecution Witnesses to be checked:
In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution State vs. Azad & Anr.
FIR No. 278/2014, P.S. Badarpur page 3 of 10 in all has examined nine witnesses, namely:
Designation and Name Role in the present case Sr. No. of the Witness
1. PW1 HC Vijay Bhatia Complainant
2. PW2 ASI Sumer Singh Duty officer
3. PW3 Constable Formal Witness Rajender
4. PW 4 Constable Sunil Formal Witness Kumar
5. PW 5 Santosh Kumar Eye witness/public witness Shama
6. PW6 Manoj Tyagi Eye witness/public witness
7. PW7 ASI Lallan Singh Ist Investigating Officer(IO)
8. PW8 SI Mohender 2nd Investigating Officer (IO) Singh
9. PW9 Retired SI Kishori Eye witness.
Lal Sharma
(iii) Documents on record to be checked:
The prosecution witnesses relied on the following documents:
Sr. No. Exhibits/Marks Nature of documents
1. Ex.PW1/A Seizure memo of torn uniform and name plate of complainant
2. Ex.PW1/B Complaint of complainant
3. Ex.PW1/C Site plan
4. Ex.PW1/D Arrest memo of accused Azad
5. Ex.PW1/E Arrest memo of accused Inderjeet
6. Ex.PW1/F Personal search of accused Azad State vs. Azad & Anr.
FIR No. 278/2014, P.S. Badarpur page 4 of 10
7. Ex.PW1/G Personal search of accused Inderjeet
8. Ex.PW1/H Seizure memo of scooty bearing No. DL-3SBZ-3022
9. Ex.PW2/A FIR
10. Ex.PW2/B Rukka
11. Ex.PW2/C Certificate U/s. 65B Indian Evidence Act
12. Ex.PW7/A DD Entry No. 34B
13. Ex.PW9/A Sanction U/s 195 Cr.P.C Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 04.09.2021. The court will discuss the testimonies of the said witnesses later i.e. at the time of appreciation of evidence. They stated that they did not want to lead DE.
THE STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.PC. / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
7. The Accused persons in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, on 06.04.2022 denied the entire evidence put to them. They stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They stated that they do not want to lead DE.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. The Court heard the final arguments on 07.05.2022.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS State vs. Azad & Anr.
FIR No. 278/2014, P.S. Badarpur page 5 of 10
9. I have heard the submissions of learned APP for the State as well as that of learned counsel for both the accused persons. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
10. In order to decide the present case, it is important to discuss the provisions. First, let us discuss Sections 186, 353, 332, 34 IPC.
The essential ingredients of offences under Section 186, 353, 332 IPC are as described below:
a. Ingredients of Section 186 IPC are as given below:
i. The accused voluntarily caused obstruction to a public servant;
ii. In the discharge of the public functions of the public servant.
b. Ingredients of Section 353 IPC are as given below:
i. The accused assaulted/used criminal force upon the complainant who was a public servant; and that ii. The said assault or criminal force was used iii. In the execution of his duty as such public servant, or iv. With intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or v. In consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant.
c. Ingredients of Section 332 IPC are as given below:
i. The accused voluntarily caused hurt to the public servant;
ii. In the discharge of the duties of the public servant. iii. With intent to prevent/deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant.
State vs. Azad & Anr.
FIR No. 278/2014, P.S. Badarpur page 6 of 10
11. After careful perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that there are innumerable deficiencies in the case of the prosecution and contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses. The same are as follows:
COMPLAINANT BEING ON OFFICIAL DUTY NOT PROVED
12. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused persons with a common intention voluntarily obstructed the complainant/PW1, HC Vijay Bhatia, in the discharge of his public functions. It is also alleged that they used criminal force with intention to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty as a public servant. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons also caused the complainant hurt, by giving beatings to him and tearing his shirt.
13. In order to attract Sections 186, 353, and 332 IPC, it must be proved that the person who was obstructed, assaulted, or caused hurt was in execution of duty as a public servant.
14. The meaning of discharging the duty of public servant has been explained by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Poulose v. The State, 1985 Cri. L. J. 222, that:
"A public servant discharges his duty when he performs the functions of his office and carries on any statutory or executive duty assigned to him. He executes his duty when he carries out some act or course of conduct to its completion. Execution denotes the fulfillment, completion or carrying into operation of any act or direction or order. When statutory orders and executive directions have to be implemented the State vs. Azad & Anr.
FIR No. 278/2014, P.S. Badarpur page 7 of 10 public servant acts in execution of his duty. Discharge of duty is therefore an expression of wider connotation while the term 'execution of duty' is of limited application."
15. However, the fact that complainant/HC Vijay Bhatia was on official duty at Jaitpur Mode, Badarpur has not been proved by the prosecution. There is no evidence brought on record by the prosecution to show that the complainant was discharging his public duty at the time of the incident in question. None of the witnesses have brought any documentary evidence to show that the complainant was discharging his public duty at the time of the incident.
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
16. As per the complaint of the complainant HC Vijay Bhatia which is, Ex.PW1/A, it is stated that accused Inderjeet gave him fist blows on the back side of his head. It is stated that the accused Azad also beat him. Further, it is stated that the accused Inderjeet held his shirt collar, due to which his nameplate broke and the button of his shirt also broke. However, the complainant/PW1, HC Vijay Bhatia in his examination-in-chief held on 03.10.2016, deposed that accused Azad tore his uniform and broke the nameplate. He also deposed that accused Azad gave him fist blows. These contradictions between the allegations in the complaint and his testimony before the court weaken the case of the prosecution.
FIR No. 278/2014, P.S. Badarpur page 8 of 10
17. PW1/complainant HC Vijay Bhatia deposed in his cross- examination that he did not make a call at 100 number. He deposed that the call was made by a public person. However, PW3 Constable Rajender Singh deposed that ZO SI K. L. Sharma had informed the PCR through a wireless set which is contradictory to what has been deposed of PW1. The aforesaid contradiction also casts a doubt on the story of the prosecution.
COMPLAINANT'S REFUSAL TO GET HIMSELF MEDICALLY EXAMINED
18. The complainant/ HC Vijay Bhatia deposed in his examination-in-chief that IO asked him to get himself medically examined but he refused as he had not sustained many injuries. In case, the complainant suffered an injury, the logical step would have been, to get himself medically examined. This omission by the complainant also casts doubt on the case of the prosecution.
SEIZURE OF UNIFORM
19. In the examination-in-chief of the complainant PW1 HC Vijay Bhatia, MHC(M) had produced one white pullanda which was in an unsealed condition containing one white uniform of traffic police. The said uniform was bearing a broken nameplate of the witness. The fact that the uniform was unsealed also dents the case of the prosecution. The reason is that there could have been tampering with the evidence. Further, it is pertinent to State vs. Azad & Anr.
FIR No. 278/2014, P.S. Badarpur page 9 of 10 mention that most of the PWs deposed that uniform was not seized in their presence which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.
IMPROPER SITE PLAN
20. A perusal of the site plan, Ex.PW1/C reveals it does not show the direction from which accused persons were traveling in their vehicle and hence, it cannot be relied upon.
CONCLUSION
21. In view of the discussion in preceding paragraphs, Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable doubts in the case put forth by the prosecution. Hence, the case cannot in any manner be said to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Accused persons deserve the benefit of the doubt. Hence, both the accused namely Azad and Inderjeet are held not guilty and are acquitted of the offences punishable U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 06.06.2022 (SONAM SINGH-I) Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South-East): Saket Courts: New Delhi.
FIR No. 278/2014, P.S. Badarpur page 10 of 10