Delhi District Court
State vs Rakesh on 26 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV KUMAR
JMFC-05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CR. CASE No : 6043/2017 State vs.: Rakesh & Ors.
FIR No. : 173/2015 P.S. SAROJINI NAGAR
DLND020228192017
1. Date of commission of offence : 06.03.2015
2. Date of institution of the case : 28.04.2016
3. Name of the complainant : HC Lakhwinder
4. Name of accused, parentage &
Address : (1) Rakesh s/o Ram Kumar
(2) Manoj S/o Sh. Ram Kumar,
Both R/o T-38, Arjun Dass Camp,
Laxmibai Nagar, S. Nagar, ND.
(3) Bittu S/o Sh. Rajpal R/o No.89,
Arjun Dass Laxmibai Nagar,
Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi.
5. Offence complained of : 186/353/332/34 IPC
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acquittal
8. Date of final order : 26.08.2025
Argued by:- Sh. Aniket Kumar, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Brahm Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 1 of 27
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION: -
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 06.03.2015 at around 2:00 PM, at Ravidas Camp, Laxmibai Nagar, New Delhi, a crowd was playing DJ at a loud volume and they were also throwing water on the passersby. It is alleged that when the police officials namely HC Lakhvinder Singh, HC Rashid Khan and HC Karan tried to stop the crowd, the accused persons namely Rakesh, Bittu and Manoj along with a CCL (G), in furtherance of their common intention, obstructed the said public servants in discharge of their public functions and then gave beatings to the said police officials due to which the Uniform of HC Lakhwinder got torn. As such, it is alleged that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under section 186/353/332/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"), for which FIR no.173/2015 was registered at the police station Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARNACE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused persons was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused persons and summons were issued to them. On their appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused persons in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, charge of State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 2 of 27 accusation for offence punishable under section 186/353/332/34 of IPC was served upon them on 30.03.2017 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 ASI Lakhwinder Singh PW-2 ASI Rashid Khan PW-3 ASI Karan Singh PW-4 Satish Kumar Record clerk Safdarjung Hospital PW-5 HC Chanderjeet PW-6 Inspector Randhir Kumar PW-7 Retired SI Ramesh Chand PW-8 ASI Sanjeev Kumar DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A Complaint Ex. PW1/B Site plan Ex. PW1/C Seizure memo of uniform Ex.PW2/A, Arrest memos of accused persons Ex.PW2/B & Ex.PW2/C Ex.PW2/D, Personal search memo of accused persons Ex.PW2/E & Ex.PW2/F State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 3 of 27 Ex. PW4/A MLC of Rashid Khan Ex.PW4/B MLC of HC Lakhwinder Singh Ex.PW6/A Tehrir Ex.PW7/A Endorsement over DD No.24A Ex.PW7/B Rojnamcha entry Ex.PW7/C FIR No.173/2015
4. PW-1 HC Lakhvinder has deposed that on 06.03.2015, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Sarojini Nagar and was on patrolling duty at Arjun Dass Camp, Laxmibai Nagar along with HC Rashid Khan and Ct. Karan. He has deposed that at about 3:00 PM when they reached Arjun Dass Camp, Laxmibai Nagar, they saw crowd was gathered and they were playing D.J. on the road. He has deposed that the said crowd was also throwing water on the public persons passing by which was causing great difficulty to the general public. Hence, he along with other police officials asked the crowd to stop the D. J and throwing water. He has deposed that upon this 3-4 boys appeared from the crowd and said that "today is Holi and you cannot ask us to stop and you cannot ask to vacate the road. He has deposed that the said boys also started abusing the police officials and when they were asked to behave, they started beating him and other police officials with fists and kicks. He has also deposed that his uniform was torn due to attack and the said persons had caused obstruction in the official duty of police staff. He has deposed that he along with other staff left the spot to save themselves from the assault as the said persons were very aggressive and he also made a call at 100 number upon which IO/SI State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 4 of 27 Randheer reached the spot along with the police staff and apprehended the said boys namely Rakesh, Manoj and Bittu. He has deposed that he gave his complaint to SI Randheer Singh and a site plan was prepared at his instance. The witness has correctly identified the accused persons and his torn uniform in the Court. During cross examination, he has deposed that on 06.03.2015 he was on patrolling duty along with two other police officials and departure entry was recorded by DD writer which was at around 7:45 PM. He has deposed that vide DD No.9B, he was on duty along with Ct. Rajnish at Laxmibai Nagar and Ct. Rajnish was not present at the spot at the time of incident. He has stated that the incident occurred at around 2:00 PM and his statement was recorded by IO at around 3:00 to 3:30 PM. He has deposed that he was carrying mobile phone at the time of incident and he had made a call at 100 number as the phone number of DO could not connected. He has also deposed that they were around 20-30 public persons which were playing D. J. and Holi at the spot and due to fear and crowd, the police officials had to run away from the spot to take shelter near the government quarter which was situated at around 100 yards from the spot from where PCR call was made. He has deposed that at around 3:00 PM, he went to Safdarjung Hospital for medical examination and no external or internal injury was caused to him. He has further deposed that he was the beat officer of the said area for past six months of the incident and he did not know the accused persons prior to the incident. However he has stated that some people from the crowd were known to him. Further, he had denied the suggestions of false implications of the accused persons. He has also deposed that site plan was prepared at the PS after registration of FIR.State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 5 of 27
5. PW-2/ ASI Rashid Khan has deposed that on 06.03.2015 he was posted as Head Constable at PS Sarojini Nagar and on that day he was on patrolling duty along with HC Lakhvinder and Ct. Karan. He has deposed that at around 2:00 PM, when they reached at Arjun Dass Camp Jhuggi, they saw crowd of public persons who were dancing at D. J and they were throwing water on other public persons on the road.
He has deposed that they asked the said persons / crowd to stop and not to make nuisance, however, they reply that "today is Holi and no one can stop us". Thereafter, 3-4 boys came out with the crowd and started abusing them. He has deposed that the said boys also started to beat him and HC Lakhvinder due to which the shirt of uniform of HC Lakhvinder was torn from the site of pocket and button etc. He has deposed that anyhow they saved themselves and run away from the spot and in the meanwhile, HC Lakhvinder made a call at 100 number and IO/SI Randheer and Ct. Chanderjeet reached the spot. He has deposed that the IO then arrested and personally searched the boys who had committed the offences and whose name were revealed as Rakesh, Bittu and Manoj and CCL "G". and thereafter he and HC Lakhvinder were medically examined and the torn uniform was seized. The witness has correctly identified the accused persons in the Court. During his cross examination, he has deposed that he did not receive any external injury in the incident and he along with the IO remained at the spot till 3:30 PM and reached the hospital at about 4:45 PM. He has further deposed that his statement was recorded by IO on 06.03.2015 at PS after coming from hospital. He has denied the suggestions that beat area of HC Lakhvinder and himself were different. He has further State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 6 of 27 stated that he was on patrolling duty with Ct. Karan and HC Lakhvinder was on patrolling duty with Ct. Rajnish, however, Ct. Rajnish was not present at the spot. He has stated that he was carrying a mobile phone on that day however, he did not make any call to any police official. He was unable to recall the place and time from where the accused persons were arrested, however, he has stated that they were arrested at about 8:00 to 9:00 PM. He has deposed that all the accused persons were apprehended before he left the spot for the hospital and he went to the Safdarjung Hospital on foot which was at a distance of 2.5 to 3 Kilometers.
6. PW3/SI Karan has deposed that on 06.03.2015 he was posted at PS Sarojini Nagar as Head Constable and on that day his duty hours were from 8:00 AM to 8:00PM and at around 2:00 PM, he was on patrolling duty with HC Lakhvinder and HC Rashid Khan. He has deposed that they reached near Laxmibai Nagar where public persons were playing D. J. and throwing water on public persons which was caused causing great difficulty to the general public upon which the police officials asked them to stop, however, 2-4 boys appeared from the crowd and said that "aaj Holi hai aur aap hume pani phekne se mana nahi kar sakte". He has stated that 3-4 boys from the crowd then started abusing and they had torn the uniform of HC Lakhvinder. He has also deposed that accused Rakesh, Manoj, Bittu and CCL"G" had beaten them, hence, HC Lakhvinder made a call at 100 number after sometime and police reached at the spot. He has deposed that they took all the accused persons to the hospital for their medical examination and thereafter they handed over the accused persons to the IO. The witness State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 7 of 27 has correctly identified the accused persons and case property i.e. torn uniform in the Court. During his cross examination, he has deposed that no other police personal was present with them except three of them and at around 2:00 PM, he received a call from the public persons that some persons are making noise and throwing water on passersby, however, he could not tell the name of the said person. He has deposed that upon receiving information, they reached the spot i.e. Arjun Dass Camp on foot within ten minutes where 35-40 public persons were playing Holi. He deposed that he remained at the spot for ten minutes and thereafter he went to PS Sarojini Nagar, however, he was not medically examined. He has stated that the accused persons were arrested from their jhuggi at around 2:30 PM, however, he could not tell as to who had arrested the said persons. He again deposed that he did not know anything about the arrest of accused persons. He has deposed that no writing work or any proceeding was conducted by the IO at the spot or at Police Station in his presence.
7. PW4/Satish Kumar, Record Clerk from Safdarjung Hospital has produced the record pertaining to MLC No.43479/15 and 43480/15 and has identified the signatures of Doctor Raj Kumar Taktawala. During his cross examination, he has deposed that he is not an expert of handwriting and he cannot also depose regarding the contents of the MLC as he has no knowledge about the same. He has further deposed that he has not compared the signatures of Dr. Raj Kumar Taktawala from MLC with the signatures available at the record of the hospital.
State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 8 of 278. PW5/HC Chanderjit has deposed that on 06.03.2015, he was posted as constable at PS Sarojini Nagar and he was on emergency duty along with SI Randheer from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on that day. He has deposed that upon receiving DD No.17A, he along with SI Randheer went to the spot at Arjun Dass Camp where they saw that many people had gathered. He has stated that SI Randheer apprehended four accused persons on the instance of HC Lakhvinder, HC Rashid Khan and Ct. Karan Singh. Thereafter, the IO/SI Randheer took HC Lakhvinder and HC Rashid Khan for their medical examination and left him at the spot along with four accused persons and after medical examination, IO returned to the spot along with HC Lakhvinder and HC Rashid Khan and thereafter the IO recorded the statement of HC Lakhvinder upon which a rukka was prepared which was handed over to him for registration of FIR. He has deposed that after registration of FIR, he returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR along with original rukka to the IO and thereafter the IO prepared a site plan and seized the torn uniform of the police official. During his cross examination, he has deposed that he had joined the investigation at noon time and he reached the spot within 15-20 minutes after receiving the call. He has deposed that an FIR was registered at around 8:00 PM, however, he could not recall the names of the accused persons. Further, he could not remember if the arrest memo and personal search memo were prepared at the PS or at the spot. Rest of the suggestions have been denied by witness put to him by counsel for accused.
9. PW6/ Inspector Randheer Singh has deposed that on 06.03.2015 he was posted as SI at PS Sarojini Nagar and he was on emergency duty State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 9 of 27 along with constable Chanderjit Singh. He has deposed that on receiving DD No.17A, he went to Ravidass Camp where a crowd was present and he met HC Lakhvinder, HC Rashid and Ct. Karan Singh. He has deposed that upon inquiry, it was revealed that HC Lakhvinder had asked few persons to stop D.J., however, he was beaten up by 3-4 persons. Further, he deposed that the police officials who got injured was sent for medical examination and he apprehended 3-4 persons at the spot and recorded statement of HC Lakhvinder and prepared tehrir for registration of FIR. He has deposed that he came back to the spot and handed over a tehrir to DO on which FIR was registered and thereafter he returned to the spot where site plan was prepared and torn uniform was seized. He has deposed that the accused persons namely Bittu, Manoj and Rakesh were then arrested and their medical examination was conducted and the investigation was then marked to HC Sanjay as he was transferred on 14.07.2015. The witness has correctly identified the accused persons in the court. During his cross examination, he has deposed that he had himself collected the copy of FIR and original rukka from the DO after registration of FIR. He has deposed that the place as mentioned in the site plan as Saheed Arjun Dass Camp, however, the spot is also known as Ravi Dass Camp. Further, he has denied the suggestions put to him by counsel for accused persons.
10. PW7/SI Ramesh Chand has deposed that on 06.03.2015, he was duty officer and on that day SI Randheer had handed over a rukka to him for registration of FIR upon which he made endorsement vide DD No.24A and registered an FIR No.173/2015. The witness has produced the record pertaining to FIR. During cross examination, he has deposed State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 10 of 27 that he had handed over certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act to the IO during investigation.
11. PW8/ASI Sanjeev Kumar has deposed that on 02.10.2015 he received the case file of the present case upon transfer of SI Randheer and he compiled documents and filed the charge sheet before the Court. During cross examination, he has deposed that he had not interrogated any persons during investigation of this case and he had not obtained certificate under Section 65B of IEA. He has also deposed that he had perused the MLC before filing of the charge sheet.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
12. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statement of the accused persons was recorded on 19.07.2025 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein they stated that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. they further stated that they do not wish to lead any defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS
13. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 11 of 27 proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
14. Per contra , the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel for the accused further argued that entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. He has argued that the prosecution has not even proved the complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C., which was essential to prove an offence punishable under section 186/353/332 IPC. Also, he has argued that the prosecution has failed to examine the doctor who had prepared the MLC of the alleged victim despite his availability and hence the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. Further, it has been argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the police officials in the present matter due to previous enmity and the fact of false implication is evident from the fact that despite of abundant availability, as per their own case, the prosecution has not named any public witness in the matter. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE:
15. In the instant case, the accused persons have been charged for the offence under sections 186, 353 and 332 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It becomes relevant to reproduce the aforesaid sections as under :-
State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 12 of 27"186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions.--
Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
"332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.
--
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 13 of 27 extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
16. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. It is pertinent to note that the FIR was registered under sections 186/353/332/34 of the IPC and the PW1, PW2 and PW3 are the star witnesses of the prosecution being the eye witness, as such their testimony is of prime importance. Before appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution, a reference be made to the law of appreciating evidence of the witnesses. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 14 of 27 core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
17. In order to secure conviction, the prosecution must prove that the PW1, PW2 and PW3 were on official duty on the day of incident and an assault was committed upon them by the accused persons with the intention to obstruct them from performing their official duties due to which hurt was caused to PW1 HC Lakhwinder and PW2 HC Rashid Khan. The PW1 has deposed in his testimony that he was on patrolling duty with PW2 and PW3 on the date of incident when they saw a crowd who were playing loud music on a DJ and were throwing water on the passerby. He has deposed that when they tried to stop the crowd from creating nuisance, the accused persons started abusing them and thereafter the accused persons gave beatings to him and HC Rashid due to which his shirt of uniform was torn. The PW2 has also deposed similarly, however the PW3 HC Karan has deposed that he along with PW1 and PW2 reached the spot as he had received an information on his mobile phone that certain people are creating nuisance by playing loud music and by throwing water. Ld. Counsel for the accused State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 15 of 27 persons has argued that the PW1 was never on patrolling duty at the spot with PW2 and PW3 rather he was assigned duty with one Ct, Rajnish. He has further argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated which is visible from the contradiction in testimonies of PW1 and PW3 and that is why Ct. Rajnish has not been examined by the prosecution. The PW3 had deposed regarding receiving a phone call regarding nuisance being created at Arjun Dass Camp, however he was not able to tell as to who had given the said information. He has not stated that it was received from any secret informer so as to infer the secrecy of identity, but he has not even clarified if it was a male or a female who had made such call. Also, the departure entry vide DD no. 9B as annexed with the charge sheet shows that PW1 HC Lakhwinder was assigned patrolling duty with Ct. Rajnish on the date of incident and not with PW2 and PW3. The IO has not listed Ct. Rajnish as a witness and the prosecution has not examined him as a witness in the matter.
18.The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has also argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the matter which is evident from the fact that the PW1 and PW2 have deposed in their examination in chief that the accused persons were apprehended from the spot soon after the incident, however the arrest memo of accused persons show that they were arrested on different times at night from Arjun Dass Camp. Also, he has argued that the said witnesses to the arrest of accused persons i.e., PW2 and PW3 have denied the knowledge of time and place of arrest of the accused persons. He has argued that there are glaring discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses making their deposition unreliable. It is to be noted that the State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 16 of 27 PW1, PW2 and PW3 are the prime witnesses of the prosecution being the witness to the alleged incident, however they all have their different version regarding time and place of making of arrest of the accused persons and their medical examination which creates a doubt over the occurrence of the said incident. The PW1 and PW3 have deposed that the accused persons were apprehended from the spot and the PW2 has deposed that the accused persons were arrested from the spot, however, the arrest memo of the accused persons shows that they were arrested after 08:00 P.M. Also, the PW2 and PW3 have even denied the knowledge of place and time of arrest of the accused persons during their cross examination.
19.Also, the PW 2 has deposed that PW5 Ct. Charanjeet took them to the hospital for medical examination, however the PW1 and PW3 have deposed that the IO took the injured persons to the hospital. The PW3 has deposed that the IO first took the accused persons form the spot for medical examination at the hospital. The IO PW6 has stated that the injured police officials were sent to the hospital for medical examination and he apprehended the accused persons from the spot. There is no consistency in the testimony of the witnesses and the same are contradictory to each other. Moreover, the PW5 has deposed that the IO had prepared a rukka and handed it over to him upon which PW5 got the FIR registered at around 08:00 P.M whereas the IO/ PW6 as well as DO/PW7 have deposed that the rukka was handed over by IO himself at the PS. The said rukka which has been Ex. PW6/A has been stated to be received at the PS vide DD no. 24 A which is Ex. PW7/A whereby it is not mentioned as to who had handed over the said rukka to the DO and the time of registration of FIR is mentioned State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 17 of 27 as 05:05 P.M. Further it has been mentioned in the FIR no. 173/2015 that the copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to PW5 Ct. Chanderjeet by the DO after registration of FIR. Clearly there is a contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses and the document available on record regarding the registration of FIR and the time and place of arrest of the accused persons thereafter.
20.Further, the counsel for the accused persons has argued that the incident has been stated to be at a public place in presence of public persons however the prosecution has not named any public person as a witness. As per the case of the prosecution, the alleged incident took place at about 2:00 P.M. at a public area in presence of a crowd, however no public witness has been made to join investigation and even no effort has been made by the IO to include a public person in the investigation. Although it is true that non- joining of independent witnesses cannot be a sole ground to discard the evidence of police witnesses (Refer Appabhai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696), however, evidence in every case is to be weighed in light of the peculiar facts of the case. PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW6 have stated that public persons were present at the spot, still no public person was made to join the investigation and no notice was served to such persons. Further, the witnesses have stated that public persons were present at the spot at the time of the alleged incident however, they did not join the investigation. Even the PW 1 has deposed that a few public persons were known to him, however none of them has been made a witness. The names of such public persons were even not noted by the IO. No explanation has been provided by any of the PWs, as to why the public persons were not joined in the investigation. The State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 18 of 27 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Chand v. State of Haryana reported in 1990(1) CLR 69, it was observed that such explanations that the public persons refused to join the proceedings are unreliable. In case of Pradeep Narayana V. State of Maharashtra reported AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1930, it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused. Similarly, it was held in the case of Kuldeep Singh V. State of Haryana 2004(4) RCR 103 and Passi @ Prakash V. State of Haryana 2001(1) RCR 435 , it is settled law that whenever any recovery in connection with the place of the commission of offence is made, public person must be made witness. It is pertinent to note that Section 100(4) CrPC provides that "before making a search of the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon the two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness of the search, to attend the witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do". In the present case, the IO has even failed to note down the particulars of the person who were present during the investigation and this creates doubt regarding the fairness of the investigation. The fact that despite availability, no public persons were joined, casts a doubt on the version of the prosecution. No sincere attempts were made by the police to join witnesses in the present case, for reasons unknown and unjustified.
21.It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the police officials have falsely implicated the accused persons and they State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 19 of 27 sustained no injury. He has also argued that the MLC Ex. PW4/A and PW4/B have not been proved by the prosecution as the doctor who had prepared the same was never listed as a witness in the matter and only record details of the same has been proved by the prosecution. He has argued that anyhow the said MLC do not opine any kind of injury over the victims. To prove the allegations of offence punishable under section 332 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove that hurt was caused to the public servants. The MLC which has been placed on record by the prosecution vide ex. PW4/A and PW4/B do not opine any kind of injury over the person of the victims. Also, the PW1 and PW2 have nowhere stated that they were subjected to bodily pain, disease or infirmity. Rather in their cross examination moreover the PW1 and PW2 have deposed that they did not receive any injury either internal or external, due to the incident. Also, the said MLC is stated to have been prepared by Dr. Rajkumar Taktawala, however he was never examined as a witness. The prosecution has examined the record clerk from Safdarjung Hospital as PW4 in order to prove the genuineness of MLC Ex. PW4/A and PW4/B, however the said witness could not depose regarding the contents of the said MLC or could not explain the medical terminology as mentioned in the said MLC. In absence of any averment by any of the victims regarding any injury, infirmity or disease being suffered by them considered with the absence of any injury over the MLC, the prosecution has failed to prove that hurt was caused to the PW1 and PW2.
22.Further, the intent of the sections 186/353/332 is to punish persons who create obstruction in the discharge of duties of public servants.
State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 20 of 27While Section 186 IPC envisages merely voluntary obstruction, section 353 IPC lays down an additional condition that such obstruction must be caused by assaulting or using criminal force against the public servant. In fact, the distinction between these two provisions has been clearly borne out in the case of Durgacharan Naik & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1966 SC 1775 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under-
"It is true that most of the allegations in this case upon which the charge under s. 353, Indian Penal Code is based are the same as those constituting the charge under s. 186, Indian Penal Code but it cannot be ignored that ss. 186 and 353, Indian Penal Code relate to two distinct offences and while the offence under the latter section is a cognizable offence, the one under the former section is not so. The ingredients of the two offences are also distinct. Section 186, Indian Penal Code is applicable to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the discharge of his public functions but under s. 353, Indian Penal Code the ingredient of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary. The quality of the two offences is also different. Section 186 occurs in Ch. X of the Indian Penal Code dealing with contempt of the lawful authority of public servants, while s. 353 occurs in Ch. XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body."
23.In the present case, qua the offence under section 186 IPC, it is imperative to understand certain preconditions attached with the State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 21 of 27 prosecution under Section 186 IPC so as to give credence to further discussion. Section 195 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars court to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 186 IPC unless a complaint has been made in writing by the public servant or by another public servant to whom he is subordinate. In Makardhwaj vs. State AIR 1954 Orissa 175, it has been held, "non- compliance of the requirements of Section 195 Cr.P.C. is fatal to the prosecution of offence punishable under Section 186 IPC."
24.It has been the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the sanction /complaint made under section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been proved by the prosecution and no witness was even cited in the list of witnesses to prove the said complaint and hence the accused should be given the benefit of this lapse on the part of the prosecution. Ld. Counsel has placed his reliance upon Mohan Kukreja Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi CRL. M.C. 662/2018 where the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi hs held that: -
"8. Under Section 195 Cr.P.C, no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under the sections enumerated therein (including Section 188 IPC) except on a compliant in writing of the public servant. Section 195 Cr.P.C. has been held to be mandatory and contravention of which vitiates the entire trial being without jurisdiction and void ab initio...
14. Non-compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C. is a defect which cannot be cured subsequently as is sought to be done by the prosecution by filing a supplementary State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 22 of 27 chargesheet or by way of a complaint given by the public servant after cognizance has been taken."
25.In the present case, the Complainant, i.e., PW1/ HC Lakhwinder had made a complaint regarding the incident to the Police Station and upon this complaint, the SHO registered the present FIR and conducted investigation and accordingly the chargesheet was filed before the court. While filing of the chargesheet, one complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C. was also filed which was made by the ACP Sh. Somendra Pal Tyagi however, neither ACP Somendra pal nor any other witness was ever called by the prosecution to prove the said complaint despite opportunity being given.
26. Also, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held in the case of Gurucharan Singh Arora v. The State, (2002) 96 DLT 181 that: -
"6...... It is true that no particular form is prescribed in which the complaint should be made and the substance of the complaint that is to be read. It is not necessary that it should categorise elements of the offence to be charged. It is enough that the facts alleged should constitute an offence for which the accused is charged. It does not matter even if the complainant quotes wrong Sections. The complaint is meant to put the machinery of law in motion. Whether allegations were made with a view to take action against the accused would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 23 of 27
7. In this case, there was nothing in the complaint quoted above to indicate that the complaint was made to the Magistrate for taking action under Section 186 IPC. Mere consent of the SHO for prosecution of the accused cannot be construed as the complaint. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate that the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the charge under Section 186 IPC against the petitioner is not sustainable. It is needless to observe that in all such cases, the complaint should be filed by the concerned public servant with a prayer to take action against the accused and whenever such complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. is filed along with charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr. P.C., the Courts while taking cognizance, should also take note of such complaint, to avoid any technical objection at a later stage..."
27.Hence it is clear from the abovementioned discussion that, for setting the prosecution for an offence under section 186 IPC, a complaint has to be filed before the court either by the public officer against whom the offence has been committed or by any officer to whom such public officer is subordinate. The term complaint has been defined under section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. as "any allegation made orally or in writing to a magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report". Therefore, there is no fixed format for making of a complaint, however, it has to be made to the State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 24 of 27 court and not to the police. It is pertinent to note that, in the case in hand, the complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C. was never proved in the court either by the complainant/injured or by his superior officer. The complainant had made a complaint to the SHO concerned for registration of FIR however the necessary requirement under section 195 Cr.P.C could not be fulfilled by the prosecution and the fact remains that a complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C. was never proved in the court. As such, in view of the above stated discussion, the non- compliance of section 195 Cr.P.C. is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
28. Moreover, in Sachin and Others Versus State of NCT of Delhi Crl. Rev.P. 569/2017 whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has decided that: -
"With regard to the charges framed under sections 186/353 IPC is concerned, said charges could not have been framed in the absence of compliance with section 195 Cr. P.C. No court can take cognizance of an offence under section186 IPC unless a complaint is made by the proper officer in the proper format as prescribed under section 195 Cr. P.C. Breach of section 195 Cr. P.C. renders the action void ab initio. Non-compliance of section 195 Cr. P.C. is a non-curable defect and renders the proceeding void ab initio. Further, it may be seen that section 353 IPC has also been invoked in the subject case which is, in fact, an extension of section 186 IPC. The allegations with regard to section 353 IPC, as contained in the subject FIR, really fall in the nature of an offence under section 186 IPC. As noticed above, State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 25 of 27 no Court could have taken cognizance of the offence under section 186 IPC except on a complaint of a proper officer made under section 195 Cr. P.C. Further, it may be seen that the entire proceedings smack of arbitrariness and vindictiveness on the part of the complainant and falls squarely within the parameters of the decision of the Supreme Court in Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1 and Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 16 SCC 30 : AIR 2016 SC 4245, wherein, the Supreme Court has held that substantive justice requires that proceedings of such a mala fide nature should be quashed in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr. P.C."
29. Hence, from the above discussed law, it is clear that failure of compliance of section 195 Cr. P.C. will render the proceedings for offence under section 186/353 IPC void ab initio and the failure of proving the said complaint under section 195 Cr. P.C will be fatal to the case of prosecution in the present matter.
CONCLUSION
30.To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the ingredients of the offence punishable under sections 186/353/332/34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt, however, the prosecution has failed to prove it. There are glaring discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses and no specific role has been attributed to any of the accused persons to show as to who had committed which act. The complaint under State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 26 of 27 section 195 Cr.P.C. regarding the abovementioned offences has not been proved. Neither there is any allegation of suffering from bodily pain, infirmity or disease by the PW1 or PW2. It is a settled law that the benefit of doubt if any, has to be given to the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has remained unsuccessful to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons have been successful in punching a hole in the case of the prosecution. Resultantly, the accused persons namely Rakesh, Bittu and Manoj, are hereby found not guilty and are hereby acquitted of the offence under Sections 186/353/332/34 of IPC.
Announced in the open court on 26.08.2025 in the presence of the accused persons.
(Vaibhav Kumar) Digitally signed by VAIBHAV KUMAR JMFC05, New Delhi District, VAIBHAV KUMAR Date:
2025.08.26 16:36:17 PHC/New Delhi/26.08.2025 +0530 Note:- This judgment contains 27 pages and each page has been signed by me.State vs. Rakesh & others FIR No.173/2015 PS Sarojini Nagar Page 27 of 27