Delhi District Court
State vs Sunny on 1 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-03,
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Nidhi Singh, DJS
Cr. Cases : 1939/2023
CNR No. : DLST020071562023
Police Station : Safdarjung Enclave
FIR No. : 50/2023
Section(s) : Sections 186/332/353 IPC
In the matter of:
STATE
VERSUS
SUNNY
S/o Sh. Pappu
R/o Jhuggi no. 239, Goyla Dairy, Chhawla, Dwarka, New Delhi
...... Accused
Offence Charged of Sections 186/332/353 IPC
Plea of Accused persons Not Guilty
Date of commission of offence 29.01.2023
Date of filing of Chargesheet 03.04.2023
Date of reserving order 06.09.2024
Date of Judgment 01.10.2024
Final Order CONVICTION u/s 332 IPC
Digitally signed
by NIDHI
NIDHI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.10.01
16:44:43 +0530
State v Sunny FIR No. 50/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 1 of 11
-: BRIEF FACTUAL MATRIX AND REASONS FOR DECISION :-
1) It is the case of the prosecution that on 29.01.2023 at around 3:55 PM,
accused- Sunny, who was an under trial prisoner in judicial custody and was
admitted as a patient at Safdarjung Hospital at Ward no. 25, Bed no. 18, physically
assaulted Dr. Vikash Kumar Madhukar/Resident Doctor at Safdarjung Hospital and a
public servant in front of accompanying police officials. A written complaint was
given by Dr. Vikash Kumar Madhukar and on its basis, present FIR No. 50/2023
was registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave u/s 186/332/353 of Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC')
2) Investigation was carried out and upon completion of investigation, charge
sheet was filed u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
'Cr.P.C.') under Section 186/332/353 IPC against accused and cognizance was
taken on 09.05.2023. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused in
compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3) After considering the record and hearing the arguments, charge u/s
186/332/353IPC was framed against the accused/Sunny on 13.10.2023 to which he pleaded "not guilty" and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4) The accused admitted the genuineness of certain documents- the FIR 50/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave(without contents, Ex. A-1), Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act (without contents, Ex. A-2), endorsement vide DD no. 95 A dated 30.01.2023 (without contents, Ex. A-3), Joining report of the complainant/ Dr. Vikash (without contents, Ex. A-4), Duty Roster dated 29.01.2023 (without contents, Ex. A-5) and Medical treatment papers of the accused (without contents, Ex. A-6).
NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.01 16:44:49 +0530 State v Sunny FIR No. 50/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 2 of 11 Therefore formal examination of the corresponding witnesses was dispensed with under section 294 Cr.P.C and the above said documents were directed to be read in evidence without their formal proof.
5) In order to prove its case beyond the scope of reasonable doubt, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses.
a) PW-1/ Dr Vikash Kumar Madhukar was examined on 09.11.2023 and he deposed that on 29.01.2023, he was on duty at Safdarjung Hospital as a PG first year General Surgery Resident. When he was performing his duties at ward no.25 and when he was attending the patient/accused. He held the hand of the accused/patient on which the IV-Cannula was present and the accused/ patient slapped him with his other hand. Thereafter the constables on duty attended the matter and PW-1 informed his seniors and staff present there, about the matter and registered a complaint. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in the Court. Witness was duly cross-examined.
b) PW-2 / SI Akshay Sheoran/ Investigating Officer was examined on 15.02.2024 and he deposed that on 29.01.2023, he was posted as SI at PS Safdarjung Enclave. On the intervening night of 29-30.01.2023, investigation of the present case was marked to him by the Duty Officer. Thereafter, he went to the hospital where he met the complainant Dr. Vikash. Complainant submitted a written complaint, exhibited as Ex. PW-2/E to him with the details of the incident and the accused. He thereafter collected the MLC No. 32713/23 of Dr. Vikash. He prepared rukka Ex PW-2/A bearing his signature at point A. He went to the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex PW-2/B bearing his signature at point A. Accused was discharged from the hospital and shifted back to Tihar Jail. On 03.02.2023 he moved application for production of the accused and formally NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.01 16:44:54 +0530 State v Sunny FIR No. 50/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 3 of 11 arrested himvide arrest memo Ex PW-2/C bearing his signature at point A. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex PW-2/D bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter he obtained final opinion on MLC. He also tried to obtain CCTV footage of the incident however no camera was found to be installed covering the place of the incident. Duty roster of the ward no. 25 was also obtained and he also obtained the discharge summary of the accused from the hospital. He also obtained the details of police officials on duty at the place of incident and recorded their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW-2 was duly cross-examined.
c) PW-3/ Dr. Rahul Kumar and PW-4/ Dr. Nitish Garg were examined to prove the MLC of the Complainant Doctor and they deposed that on 29.01.2023 and a patient, namely, Vikash came to SJ emergency with complaints of physical assault and pain and swelling in left ear. The patient was examined and it was found there was a bruise over left ear. The patient was provided primary treatment and then referred to an ENT specialist. Thereafter, they prepared the MLC of the injured, namely, Dr. Vikash which is now Ex. PW-3/A. Witness was duly cross-examined.
d) PW-5/ Inspector Sharat Kohli was examined on 05.04.2024 and he deposed that on 15.03.2023, he was posted as Reserve Inspector 3rd battalion DAP. They received a notice under Section 91 Cr.PC in the present matter relating to the record of I/C Central Jail 3rd DAP requiring the details of the staff deployed with accused- Sunny@ Shooter, S/o. Sh. Pappu on 29.01.2023. In reply to that, he submitted the record of I/C Central Jail, 3rd DAP Ex. PW- 5/A (running P1 to P7 pages) bearing his signature at point A, wherein it was disclosed that HC Deepak and HC Gaurav Kumar, were deployed with Sunny@ Shooter. PW-5 was Digitally signed duly cross-examined. NIDHI by NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.01 16:44:59 +0530 State v Sunny FIR No. 50/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 4 of 11
e) PW-6/ HC Deepak Yadav and PW-7/ HC Gaurav were examined on 05.04.2024 and they deposed that on 29.01.2023, they were posted as HC in 3rd Battalion, Delhi Police. On the day of the incident, they had duty at SJ Hospital, Ward no. 25 and about 04:00 PM on that day, accused Sunny was undergoing treatment and slapped Dr. Vikash. The Doctor left the ward and they apprehended the accused. Later on the Doctor got his MLC prepared and made the complaint to the police. During the investigation, their statement was recorded by the IO.
They correctly identified the Accused who was present in the Court. Witness was duly cross-examined.
6) After examination of above cited witnesses, PE was closed vide order dated 03.05.2024.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
7) Statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 20.06.2024, wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused, to which the accused asserted his innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as, on the date of the incident he was taken to AIIMS hospital for his medical treatment and no one was concerned with his medical condition. He made several requests to the medical staff for giving him medical treatment but instead of giving him medical treatment they started abusing him and in revert he argued with them as well. Due to this, the present case has been registered against him. He further stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complaint and police officials. The accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.10.01
16:45:04 +0530
State v Sunny FIR No. 50/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 5 of 11
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8) In the final arguments, Ld. APP submitted that the case has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt as the 7 witnesses have consistently deposed and that the accused be convicted of the offence charged with.
9) Per Contra, Ld. LAC for the accused has argued that the accused is completely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to his previous involvements. He has argued that CCTV footage from the ward has not been brought on record as the same would have shown that no such incident took place. Further, it has been argued that prosecution has not established the motive why the accused may have slapped the complainant doctor. Ld. LAC finally submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that, therefore, the benefit of the same ought to be extended to the accused, and that the accused is liable to be acquitted of the alleged offence.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
10) This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record as well as the arguments. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apt to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In criminal law, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused exclusively lies on the prosecution which must prove the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused. It would be pertinent to make a reference to the relevant provision that the accused is charged with i.e. Section 186/332/353 IPC.
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 Digitally signed NIDHI by NIDHI SINGH Date:
SINGH 2024.10.01 16:45:10 +0530 State v Sunny FIR No. 50/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 6 of 11 extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, 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 extend to three years, or with fine, 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 to 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.
11) Firstly, for the offences in the present case, the common ingredient to be established is whether the complainant/Dr. Vikash is a "Public servant" as envisaged under Section 21 of the IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that the injured/ Complainant is a Resident 1st year Doctor in the department of surgery in Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Joining report of the complainant, Ex A-4, has been placed on record to support this. The Accused has admitted the genuineness of the same and has not objected to the factum of the complainant being a doctor. Further it is a known fact that Safdarjung Hospital is a government hospital.
Section 21 IPC defines "Public Servant" as "...[Twelfth] Every person-- (a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government; (b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government company as defined NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.01 16:45:14 +0530 State v Sunny FIR No. 50/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 7 of 11 in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)..."
Being a doctor in a government hospital, the Complainant is on government payroll and hence is squarely covered under the definition of Public Servant under Section 21 of the IPC. Hence this ingredient has been satisfied.
12) Secondly, prosecution has placed on record the Duty Roster for the month of January of the Hospital Ex A-5. The document was admitted by the accused. The Roster shows that it was the complainant Doctor who was on duty at the time of the alleged incident at ward no. 25. Further, medical treatment papers of the accused Ex. A-6(colly) have also been relied upon by the prosecution to establish that the accused was being treated for gunshot injury below his knee at the place of the incident in Safdarjung Hospital. Therefore, it has been duly established that the accused, who was an under trial prisoner, was brought for medical treatment at Safdarjung Hospital and was being treated/attended by Complainant/Dr. Vikash who was on duty on 29.01.2023.
13) Thirdly, it is the burden of the prosecution to establish that accused voluntarily assaulted or used criminal force and caused hurt to the complainant 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. Voluntarily is defined in Section 39 of the IPC and is reproduced below:-
39. "Voluntarily".--A person is said to cause an effect "voluntarily" when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.01 16:45:19 +0530 State v Sunny FIR No. 50/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 8 of 11
14) Testimony of PW-1/ Complainant is unblemished and he has consistently deposed that the accused slapped him when he was attending to him and treating him at Safdarjung Hospital. The factum of accused slapping the complainant doctor is also corroborated by the testimony of PW-6 and PW-7 who were present in the same ward and were the Police Officials on duty accompanying the accused for his hospital treatment. Their presence has been admitted by PW-1 in his testimony as well. Further, MLC No. 32713/23 of Dr. Vikash i.e. Ex. PW-3/A also corroborates with his testimony. PW-3 and PW-4 have testified to the contents of the MLC and both have consistently stated that Complainant/Dr. Vikash complained of pain and swelling in the left ear and that there was a bruise over the left ear. The Complainant/ Dr. Vikash was further referred to ENT for opinion. The factum of hurt being caused is thereby established. Nothing contradictory has come on record from the cross examination of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7.
15) One of the defence taken by Ld. LAC for the accused is that prosecution has not been able to establish the reason why the accused had allegedly hit the complainant/ Dr. Vikash. In this regard, I place my reliance on the case of Emperor v. Bandhoo Ahir, AIR 1935 All 563: 36 CrLJ 964: 156 IC 602 that, "....Under that provision of law a person who causes grievous hurt to a public servant can be convicted under three circumstances: (1) when grievous hurt is caused while the public servant is in the discharge of his duty as such public servant; in this case motive and object are irrelevant, (2) when a public servant: is prevented or deterred from, discharging his duty as such pubvant in this case it is necessary that the object of the accused should be to deter the public servant from discharging his duty but it is not necessary to prove any motive (3) when, the public servant is assaulted in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that public servant I in the discharge of his duty; in this case it is not necessary that the public servant should NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.01 16:45:24 +0530 State v Sunny FIR No. 50/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 9 of 11 he discharging his duty at the time of the assault. The object too is irrelevant. The only thing that has got to be seen is the motive. In the present case there cannot be the slightest doubt that the assault was made on the Sub-Inspector in consequence of what he had done against the three accused and the third circumstance mentioned by us undoubtedly applies. We are therefore of the opinion that the accused ought to have been convicted under Section 333, Penal Code, and the acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is incorrect..." In light of this judgment, the present case of the prosecution is covered by the first circumstance and therefore motive and object of the accused for causing hurt to the complainant/Dr. Vikash are irrelevant.
16) Further, the version of the prosecution is consistent and corroborated with material on record. Hence the prosecution has discharged its burden. The burden now shifts on the defence. The Ld. LAC for the accused had put forth a suggestion to PW-1 in his cross examination that the accused could not have hit the complainant as he was not even in the position to stand however the same has been denied by the witness and nothing has been brought in defence by the accused that he was physically and medically not in a condition to slap and cause hurt to the complainant. The treatment papers of the accused reveal that on the day of the incident i.e. 29.01.2023, the accused had stable vitals and was also discharged the next day from the hospital. Discharge paper also mentions that the accused was not cooperating with hospital staff and doctors. Hence, neither the defence has pointed out any inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution nor has it placed anything on record that would create a dent on the prosecution version.
17) Further, Section 186 pertains to obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions and Section 353 pertains to assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. The ingredients of Section 186 and 353 IPC have been already covered in light of the evidence led by the prosecution for offence u/s NIDHI Digitally signed by NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.10.01 16:45:29 +0530 State v Sunny FIR No. 50/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 10 of 11 332 IPC.
18) To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to Dr. Vikash who is a government doctor in the discharge of his duty as such public servant beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the star witness/PW Dr. Vikash is cogent and convincing and supported by his MLC Ex. PW-3/A and testimony of other prosecution witnesses. The accused has not been able to contradict the case of the prosecution on any material count. Resultantly, accused - Sunny is held guilty and is convicted of the charges levelled against him for offence u/s 332 IPC and is acquitted for offence u/s 353/186 IPC.
Announced in open court on this 1st day of October, 2024.
This Judgment consists of 11 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.10.01
16:45:34 +0530
(NIDHI SINGH)
JMFC-03, South District,
Saket Courts,Delhi
01.10.2024
State v Sunny FIR No. 50/2023 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 11 of 11