Delhi District Court
State vs Harender Kumar on 26 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL SAINI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
DLSH020013632020
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.271/2017, PS Jyoti
Nagar [Cr. Case
No.801/2020}
b Date of the commission of 19.07.2017
the offence
c Name of the Complainant : Ct. Parvesh
d Name of Accused person and : Harender Kumar S/o Shri
his parentage and residence Shyam Singh R/o: H. No. B
362, MIG Flats, East of Loni
Road, Delhi
e Offence complained of : 186/332/333/353/34 IPC
f Plea of the Accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
g Final Order Acquitted u/s 186/353/333
IPC
h Order reserved on : 23.09.2025
i Order pronounced on : 26.09.2025
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Factual matrix and trial proceedings
1. Briefly stated the facts of the Prosecution case against the
accused Harender S/o Shri Shyam Singh is that on 19.07.2017,
at about 8.00 pm, at MIG Flats, DDA Park, Delhi within the
jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar, while the complainant Ct. Parvesh
and SI Akhil, HC Naresh, Ct. Sanjeev, HC Deepak and HC
FIR No. 271/2017
PS Jyoti Nagar Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
State vs. Harender Kumar RAHUL1/SAINI
23
SAINI Date:
2025.09.26
16:58:04
+0530
Rajdeep were standing at above said spot and were conducted
inquiry with accused's son namely Tushar who was driving
without helmet, at that time accused came at the spot and
voluntarily obstructed the way of the complainant, public
servants in discharging of their public functions and further gave
beatings to the complainant Ct. Parvesh and voluntarily caused
grievous hurt upon the complainant, while he was discharging his
duty as such public servant and had committed the offence
punishable u/s 186/353/333 IPC. Hence, the present case was
registered for the said offence.
2. Chargesheet in this matter was filed in the court on
01.02.2020 for the offence 186/332/333/353/34 IPC against
accused Harender Kumar S/o Shri Shyam Singh, whereupon
cognizance was taken in this matter on the same day.
On 18.01.2023, court copy of chargesheet and relevant
documents attached with it were supplied to accused Harender
S/o Shri ShyamSingh in compliance of section 207 Cr. P.C.
3. Moving further, vide order dated 05.04.2025, charge u/s
186/353/333 IPC was framed against accused Harender Kumar
S/o Shri Shyam Singh which was read over and explained to the
accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Thereafter, matter was taken up for recording of
Prosecution evidence qua accused Amar.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has cited 14
witnesses out of which, only 09 witnesses were examined by the
Prosecution.
RAHUL
FIR No. 271/2017 SAINI
PS Jyoti Nagar Digitally signed
by RAHUL SAINI
State vs. Harender Kumar 2/ 23
Date: 2025.09.26
16:58:10 +0530
.
PW: 1 HC Parvesh Kumar No. 1601/OD: He deposed that on 19.07.2017, he was posted at ACP Nand Nagri Office, North East District Delhi as Ct. On that day, in the evening time, he along with SI Akhil, HC Rajdeep, HC Naresh and Ct. Yogesh were on patrolling duty and they reached near MIG flats. At about 8 pm, they were checking the vehicles, in the meanwhile, one boy came there on motorcycle bearing no. 6433 but he does not remember the complete registration no. of the said motorcycle. Thereafter, they gave signal to stop him and they told to said person to show the documents of the said bike. The said person replied them that the documents are lying in the house. After some time, his father came there and he slapped him and torn his uniform. His uniform was torn near the button side. The other staff had apprehended the accused. Someone called at 100 number but he did not know the name of the said person. He further deposed that PCR arrived at the spot and took them along with accused to PS Jyoti Nagar, where IO had recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/A. IO got registered the FIR on the basis of his complaint. IO took his signatures on some documents i.e. arrest memo of accused which is Ex. PW1/B, personal search memo which is Ex. PW1/C. Witness had correctly identified the accused as well as the case property is Ex.P1.
During cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, witness admitted that Ct. Sanjeev and HC Deepak were also present at the time of the incident. He further admitted that the Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI FIR No. 271/2017 SAINI Date:
2025.09.26 PS Jyoti Nagar 16:58:22 +0530 State vs. Harender Kumar 3/ 23 motorcycle no. DL 13SR 6433 and further admitted that IO had prepared site plan at his instance which is Ex. PW1/C. Witness had also admitted that IO had seized his uniform with the seal of ML vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D and IO also seized the said motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/E. The identity of the said motorcycle was not disputed by Ld. Counsel for the accused. He further admitted that he did not remember the above mentioned facts due to lapse of time.
During cross examination, by Ld. Counsel for the accused he deposed that he made entry prior leaving to office but he did not recollect the exact DD no. He further deposed during cross examination that they reached at the spot at about 7.00 pm on motorcycle but he did not recollect its registration Number. Further witness could not recollect whether IO had requested any public persons to join investigation or not. He did not recollect the exact seal which was used by the IO to seal his uniform and that to whom the said Seal was handed over by him.
Further, witness admitted that IO did not prepare the seal handing over memo and receiving over memo. He did not recollect the exact time when his statement was recorded but it was recorded at the spot.
He further deposed during cross examination that IO prepared site plan but he did not recollect the time when it was prepared. Witness further did not recollect who called at PS to inform regarding quarrel. He did not recollect the time when he finally left the spot. He did not remember the exact time when IO had seized his uniform as well as motorcycle of accused. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in the FIR No. 271/2017 Digitally PS Jyoti Nagar signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs. Harender Kumar 4/ 23 SAINI Date:
2025.09.26 16:58:28 +0530 present matter or that case property was planted upon accused or that all proceedings were done while sitting at PS or that IO did not join any public persons to join investigation or that no scuffle took place at the spot between him and accused. He further denied that suggestion that IO did not seize his uniform or that accused was arrested from his house instead of spot.
PW: 2 SI Akhil: He deposed that on 19.07.2017, they were given instructions to conduct checking near MIG flats in view of increasing snatching incidents. Thereafter, he along with HC Deepak, HC Naresh, HC Rajdeep, Ct. Pravesh and Ct. Sanjeev were performing checking near MIG Flats, suddenly at around 8.00 pm, they heard a noise of scuffle between accused Harender Kumar and Ct. Pravesh. They reached near Ct. Pravesh and found that his uniform was torn. Thereafter, all the staff had apprehended the accused Harender and his son Tushar. IO SI Shikshit came at the spot and they handed over the accused to the IO. IO recorded statement of Ct Pravesh and got registered the present FIR. He had also recorded his statement.
Witness had correctly identified the accused as well as the case property Ex. P1.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he made Entry vide DD No. 18A prior leaving to PS. They reached at the spot on foot. He did not recollect whether IO had requested any public persons to join investigation or not. He did not recollect the exact seal which was used by the IO to seal the uniform of the complainant. He further could not recollect that after use the seal was handed over to whom. He admitted that IO did not prepare the seal handing Digitally signed by FIR No. 271/2017 RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
PS Jyoti Nagar 2025.09.26
16:58:35
+0530
State vs. Harender Kumar 5/ 23
over memo and receiving over memo in his presence. Further, he could not recollect the exact time when statement of the complainant was recorded but it was recorded at the spot. IO prepared site plan at the instance of HC Pravesh but he did not recollect what time it was prepared.
Witness had further denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in the present matter or that case property was planted upon accused or that all proceedings were done while sitting at PS or that IO did not join any public persons to join investigation or that no scuffle took place at the spot between Ct. Pravesh and accused or that IO did not seize the uniform of the complainant or that accused was arrested from his house instead of spot.
PW:3 ASI Rajdeep Tyagi:- He deposed that on 19.07.2017, they were given instructions to conduct checking near MIG flats in view of increasing snatching incidents.
Thereafter, he along with HC Deepak, HC Naresh, SI Akhil, Ct. Pravesh and Ct. Sanjeev were performing checking near MIG Flats, suddenly at around 8.00 pm, they heard a noise of scuffle between accused Harender Kumar and Ct. Pravesh. They had reached near Ct. Pravesh and found that his uniform was torn. Thereafter, all the staff apprehended accused Harender and his son Tushar. IO SI Shikshit came at the spot and they handed over the accused to the IO. IO recorded statement of Ct. Pravesh and got registered the present FIR. He had also recorded his statement.
Witness had correctly identified the accused as well as the case property i.e. torn uniform Ex. P1.
Digitally
signed by
FIR No. 271/2017 RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
PS Jyoti Nagar SAINI Date:
2025.09.26
16:58:41
State vs. Harender Kumar 6/ 23
+0530
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he made entry vide DD No. 18A prior leaving to PS and had reached at the spot on foot. Further, he did not recollect whether IO had requested any public persons to join investigation or not. He did not recollect the exact seal which was used by the IO to seal the uniform of the complainant. He did oes not remember after using the seal, the same was handed over to whom. He admitted that he did not prepare the seal handing over memo and receiving over memo in my presence. He did not recollect the exact time when statement of the complainant was recorded but it was recorded at the spot. IO did not prepare site plan in his presence. He did not remember who called at PS to inform regarding quarrel. IO reached at the spot at about 9.30-10 pm. IO did not take his signatures on any documents. He had left the spot at about 11.30 pm. Further, he did not recollect the exact time when statement of the complainant was recorded by the IO. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in the present matter or that case property was planted upon accused or that all proceedings were done while sitting at PS. He further denied the suggestion that IO did not join any public persons to join investigation or that no scuffle took place at the spot between Ct. Pravesh and accused. He further denied the suggestion that IO did not seize the uniform of the complainant as he did not know the name of the seal. He further denied the suggestion that accused was arrested from his house instead of spot.
PW-4 HC Sanjeev:- He deposed that on 19.07.2017, they were given instructions to conduct checking near MIG flats in Digitally signed by FIR No. 271/2017 RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.09.26 PS Jyoti Nagar 16:58:47 +0530 State vs. Harender Kumar 7/ 23 view of increasing snatching incidents. He along with HC Deepak, HC Naresh, HC Rajdeep, Ct. Pravesh, Ct. Sonu and SI Akhil were performing checking near MIG Flats, suddenly at around 7-8.00 pm, they had heard a noise of scuffle between accused Harender Kumar and Ct. Pravesh. They reached near Ct. Pravesh and found that his uniform was torn. Thereafter, all staff apprehended accused Harender and his son Tushar. IO SI Shikshit came at the spot and they handed over the accused to the IO. IO recorded statement of Ct. Pravesh and got registered the present FIR. IO also recorded his statement.
Witness had correctly identified the case property Ex. P1.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he made departure entry prior to leaving to PS. They had reached at the spot on foot. Further he did not recollect whether IO had requested any public persons to join investigation or not. Further, he did not recollect the exact seal which was used by the IO to seal the uniform of the complainant. Further, he did not recollect that after use, the seal was handed over to whom. He admitted that IO did not prepare the seal handing over memo and receiving over memo in his presence. He did not remember the exact time when statement of the complainant was recorded but it was recorded at the spot. IO prepared site plan at the instance of HC Pravesh but he did not recollect at what time it was prepared. He further deposed during his cross examination that he did not remember who called at PS to inform regarding quarrel. He had left the spot finally at about 10 pm. He further could not recollect the exact time when site FIR No. 271/2017 Digitally signed by PS Jyoti Nagar RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI State vs. Harender Kumar 8/ 23 Date:
2025.09.26 16:58:53 +0530 plan was prepared and he also did not remember the exact time when accused was arrested. He did not recollect whether IO took his signature at the arrest memo of the accused or not. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in the present matter or that case property was planted upon accused or that all proceedings were done while sitting at PS or that IO did not join any public persons to join investigation or that no scuffle took place at the spot between Ct. Pravesh and accused or that IO did not seize the uniform of the complainant as he did not know the name of the seal. He further denied the suggestion that accused was arrested from his house instead of spot.
PW:5 ASI Naresh:- He had deposed the similar facts as deposed by PW1, PW2 in their testimonies.
During cross examination by the accused witness deposed that IO reached at the spot at about 9.30 pm. He had left the spot at about 11.30 pm. PW:6 Statement of HC Deepak:- He deposed that on 19.07.2017, he was posted at ACP Office Nand Nagari, Delhi as HC. On that day, he was present at Kardampuri and conducted patrolling duty in the jurisdiction of Kardampuri and after that he had reached at MIG Flat where he met HC Naresh, HC Rajdeep, SI Akhil, Ct. Pravesh and Ct. Sanjeev who were conducting checking near MIG flats in view of increasing snatching incidents. Suddenly at around 8.00 pm, they heard a noise of scuffle between accused Harender Kumar and Ct. Pravesh. They reached near Ct. Pravesh and found that his uniform was torn. All staff apprehended accused Harender and his son Tushar. IO SI Shikshit came at the spot and they handed over the accused Digitally signed by RAHUL FIR No. 271/2017 RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar SAINI Date:
2025.09.26 16:59:10 State vs. Harender Kumar 9/ 23 +0530 persons to the IO. IO recorded statement of Ct. Pravesh and got registered the present FIR. He also recorded his statement. Witness had correctly identified the accused as well as case property Ex.P1.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he made entry vide DD No. 18A prior leaving to PS. They reached at the spot on foot. Further, he had requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and went away without telling their names and addresses. He admitted that no notice was served to public persons who refused to join investigation. Further, IO did not seize the clothes of the accused. IO seized the uniform of Ct. Parvesh with the seal of ML. After using the seal, the same was handed over to Ct. Sonu. He also admitted that IO did not prepare the seal handing over memo and receiving over memo in his presence. The statement of the complainant was recorded at about 9.40 pm. IO had prepared site plan in his presence at the instance of Ct. Parvesh at about 10.30 pm. IO prepared rukka at about 10.20 pm and handed over the same to Ct. Sonu and he came back at the spot at about 11.15 pm. He does not remember who called at PS to inform regarding quarrel. IO reached at the spot at about 9.25 pm. IO did not take his signatures on any documents. He had left the spot at about 11.30 pm. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in the present matter or that case property was planted upon accused or that all proceedings were done while sitting at PS or that IO did not join any public persons to join investigation or that no scuffle took place at the spot between Ct. Pravesh and accused. He further denied the FIR No. 271/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Digitally State vs. Harender Kumar 10/ 23 signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.09.26 16:59:25 +0530 suggestion that IO did not seize the uniform of the complainant as IO did not prepare seal handing over memo or that accused was arrested from his house instead of spot. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
PW:7HC Sonu:- He deposed that on 19.07.2017, he was posted at PS Jyoti Nagar as Ct. and his duty hours were from 8 pm to 8 am. On that day, he had joined investigation with IO/SI Shikshit who received DD no. 85B regarding quarrel with Ct. Parvesh from ACP Office. Thereafter, he along with IO reached at the spot, i.e. MIG Flats, DDA Park where they met staff of ACP office and they handed over two persons to the IO and they came to know their names as Harender and Tushar. IO recorded statement of Ct. Parvesh and prepared rukka and same was handed over to him for registration of the FIR and he had left the spot and went to PS and got registered the FIR in the present matter. After registration of the FIR, he came back at the spot and handed over copy of the FIR and original rukka to the IO. IO had arrested accused Harender and his son Tushar. IO checked the date of birth of accused Tushar and found he was juvenile and IO handed over the custody of juvenile to his Maternal uncle Manoj. IO seized the uniform of the Ct. Parvesh. Thereafter, he along with the accused went to PS and accused was sent to lock up. IO recorded his statement.
He had correctly identified the accused as well as the case property Ex. P1.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, witness deposed that he did not make any departure entry before leaving PS. He went to the spot on his motorcycle and reached at Digitally FIR No. 271/2017 signed by RAHUL PS Jyoti Nagar RAHUL SAINI State vs. Harender Kumar 11/ 23 Date:
SAINI 2025.09.26 16:59:38 +0530 the spot at about 9.45 pm. He did not remember the name of the officials from ACP office who were present at the spot at that time and he only knew the name of the complainant as Ct. Parvesh. He did not remember when Rukka was prepared and he also did not remember the exact time when it was handed over to him by IO. He reached PS at about 10.15 pm. He came back at the spot at about 10.45 pm. Site plan was prepared at the spot but he did not remember the exact time. IO did not take his signatures at any documents. IO did not seal the uniform of Ct. Parvesh in his presence and he could not tell regarding the seal which was used. IO did not seize any motorcycle of accused. The staff from the ACP office had handed over the motorcycle to the IO but he did not remember the registration no. and make of the said motorcycle. He did not know after using the seal was handed over to whom. IO did not hand over the seal to him. He admitted that IO did not prepare any seal handing over memo in his presence. He did not remember when accused was arrested by the police. He did not remember when he finally left the spot. IO did not call any juvenile Officer at the spot. He did not remember the colour of the cloth of accused wearing by him at the time of incident. He did not remember who gave information regarding quarrel to the PS. He had denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in the present matter or that case property was planted upon accused or that all proceedings were done while sitting at PS or that IO did not join any public persons to join investigation or that no scuffle took place at the spot between Ct. Pravesh and accused. He further denied the suggestion that IO did not seize the uniform of the complainant as he did not know Digitally signed by FIR No. 271/2017 RAHUL RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar SAINI Date:
2025.09.26
State vs. Harender Kumar 12/ 23
16:59:48
+0530
the name of the seal. He further denied the suggestion that accused was arrested from his house instead of spot or that he hd never went to the spot as no signature of his was taken on any documents.
PW-8:SI Sumit:- He deposed that in the month of June, 2019, he had received the present case file for further investigation as per directions of the SHO. After perusal of the file, he came to know that the investigation is almost completed. He had collected complaint u/s 195 Cr. P. C. from concerned ACP Office. After completion of investigation, he prepared charge-sheet and same was submitted before the court.
During cross examination by Ld. counsel for the accused he deposed that he did not put his signatures on any receiving documents in respect of the said complaint as it is not necessary. He had denied the suggestion that he never collected any complaint u/s 195 Cr. P. C. from ACP Office or that he never conducted fair investigation in the present matter as second IO. He further denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case or that case property has been planted upon the accused.
PW: 9 SI Shikshit:- He deposed that on 19.07.2017, he was posted at PS Jyoti Nagar as SI and he is the first IO of the present case. On the said day, he had received DD No. 85B regarding beatings to police officials. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Sonu reached at the spot where he met complainant Ct. Pravesh, SI Akhil, HC Naresh, Ct. Sanjeev, HC Deepak and HC Rajdeep and they produced two persons before him. He made enquiry and came to know their names as Harender and CCL 'T'.
Digitally
FIR No. 271/2017 signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
PS Jyoti Nagar SAINI Date:
2025.09.26
State vs. Harender Kumar 13/ 23
17:00:06
+0530
He recorded statement of complainant Ct. Pravesh. He prepared rukka and same was handed over to Ct. Sonu for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to PS and got registered the FIR in the present matter and came back at the spot and handed over copy of the FIR and original rukka to him. Thereafter, he seized the torn uniform of the complainant after preparing pullanda and sealed it with the seal of ML. The seizure memo of the case property is already Ex. PW1/D. He also seized one motorcycle make Bullet black colour bearing No. DL 13SR 6433 vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/E, bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, he prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant which is already Ex. PW1/C. Thereafter, he arrested accused Harender vide arrest memo and personal search memo which are already Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. He recorded statement of all above mentioned staff he also got medically examined complainant at GTB Hospital vide MLC No. C- 5255/28/2017. Thereafter, he along with accused Harender and case property went to PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused was sent to lock up. On the next day, he produced the accused before the court and accused was released on bail. During investigation, he deposited the MLC of the complainant at GTB Hospital to get final opinion on MLC. After final opinion, he had received the said MLC with opinion as grievous. Thereafter, he was transferred to another place and he handed over the case file of the present case to MHC(R). He also prepared PIR against the CCL and same was submitted before the JJB Court.
RAHUL
SAINI
FIR No. 271/2017 Digitally signed
PS Jyoti Nagar by RAHUL SAINI
Date: 2025.09.26
State vs. Harender Kumar 14/ 23
17:00:18 +0530
Witness had had correctly identified the case property as Ex. P1 in the testimony of PW1.
Identify of the motorcycle is not disputed by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On being cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused he admitted that the alleged incident was not happened in his presence. He had requested public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. He further admitted that he did not serve any notice to public persons who refused to join. He also admitted that no videography or photography was done by any police staff who were present at the spot at the time of incident. After using the seal, seal was handed over to Ct. Sonu. He also admitted that he did not hand over the seal to public persons. He further admitted that he did not prepare seal handing over memo at any point of time or that he did not prepare scale site plan or that he did not obtain signatures of other witnesses on seizure memo of the case property, arrest memo, personal search memo. He denied the suggestion that he had never conducted fair investigation in the present matter or that he had never visited at the spot or that he made a concocted story to falsely implicate the accused in the present matter. He further denied the suggestion that no such incident was ever happened as no witness had put his signatures on the relevant documents i.e. seizure memo etc or that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case or that case property has been planted upon the accused. He further denied the suggestion that he had never requested public persons to join investigation at any point of time or that he never seized RAHUL FIR No. 271/2017 SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar Digitally signed by RAHUL SAINI State vs. Harender Kumar 15/ 23 Date: 2025.09.26 17:00:28 +0530 any case property in the present case as he did not prepare seal handing over memo or that he is deposing falsely.
It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 02.08.2025, witness mentioned at Sl. No. 8 ASI Ram Prakash Duty Officer, Sl. No. 09 Dr. Susheel, CMO, GTB Hospital, Sl. No. 10 Doctor Manoj, BMMS , UCMS and GTB Hospital and Sl. No. 12 Shri Anuj Kumar, ACP were dropped from the list of witnesses as accused has admitted the genuineness of the FIR No. 271/2017 along with Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. A1(Colly.) DD No. 18A and DD n o. 85B dated 19.07.2017 which are Ex. A2(Colly.), MLC No. C 5255/28/2017 with X ray report is Ex. A3(Colly) and complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC is Ex A4. qua the present case in his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
05. After completion of prosecution evidence, PE stands closed vide order dated 20.08.2025 and matter was fixed for statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C.
06. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 30.08.2025 to which he stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further states that he does not wishes to lead any evidence in his defence.
Hence. DE stands closed, and therefore, the matter was taken up for hearing of final arguments, which were duly addressed by Ld. Counsel for the accused as well as Ld. APP for the State.
Digitally signed by Summary of arguments RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.09.26 FIR No. 271/2017 17:00:36 +0530 PS Jyoti Nagar State vs. Harender Kumar 16/ 23
07. Ld. APP for the State has vehemently argued that the accused be convicted for the offences with which he has been charged as the said offences are heinous in nature and leaving the accused free without any penalty being imposed upon him would rather make him commit similar offences again. Further, it was argued by Ld. APP that complainant during the course of his examination, had correctly identified the accused and prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, accused Harender Kumar S/o Shri Shyam Singh is liable to be convicted for the offences he is charged for.
08. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has strongly opposed the contentions of Ld. APP for the State stating that although as per the prosecution case, several public persons were there at the time of the alleged incident, however, none has been joined in the investigation by the IO. It is further argued that the sanction obtained from ACP is defective as in the testimony of PW9 SI Shikshit and PW7 HC Sonu, both stated that they had received DD entry No.85-B regarding the beating of the police officials, however, in the Sanction letter it is mentioned that a PCR call vide DD entry No.89-B was received at PS Jyoti Nagar regarding the snatching /beating of police official. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that no signatures of witness were present at the complaint and site plan other than the complainant and the IO. Ld. Counsel further argued that there are certain other contradictions in the witnesses with respect to the timing of investigation formalities and it is further argued that Digitally FIR No. 271/2017 signed by RAHUL PS Jyoti Nagar RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
State vs. Harender Kumar 17/ 23
2025.09.26
17:00:46
+0530
due to above said reasons, prosecution has failed to prove its case and accused is liable to be acquitted.
09. Accordingly, this court has heard the rival submissions advanced by the Ld. APP for State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and has also perused the entire record carefully.
10. The relevant provisions of IPC for the purpose of disposal of the present matter are as under :
333. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty.--Whoever voluntarily causes grievous 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 ten years, and shall also be liable to fine
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 FIR No. 271/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Digitally signed by RAHUL State vs. Harender Kumar RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date: 18/ 23 2025.09.26 17:00:54 +0530 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. At the outset, before proceeding further on to discussing the weight and relevancy of evidence led by the Prosecution, this court deems it appropriate to first highlight the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence, i.e. one, that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and two, that the burden upon the Prosecution lies to the extent of proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Prosecution to prove all the ingredients which constitute the offence so that all reasonable doubts in the case of the Prosecution are removed. It may be noted that strongest of suspicion upon the accused, does not lead to the guilt of the accused. Thus, keeping in view the above stated aspects and principles of criminal jurisprudence this court shall proceed to decide upon the innocence or guilt of the accused.
12. Coming to the facts of the case, In order to prove its case, prosecution has first examined the complainant/victim HC Parvesh Kumar who deposed that on 19.07.2017, when he was on patrolling along with SI Akhil, HC Rajdeep, HC Naresh and Ct. Yogesh, then at around 8.00 pm, they were checking the vehicles, one boy came on motorcycle to whom they gave signal to stop FIR No. 271/2017 Digitally PS Jyoti Nagar signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs. Harender Kumar SAINI Date:19/ 23 2025.09.26 17:01:04 +0530 and asked him to show the documents of the bike, the said person told that the documents are lying in the house and thereafter father of the said person came at the spot and slapped HC Parvesh and torn his uniform. He further deposed that other staff had apprehended the accused and someone called at 100 number. He further deposed that PCR arrived at the spot and took them to the PS Jyoti Nagar where IO SI Shikshit recorded his statement and on the basis of this statement, the present FIR was registered. During his cross examination, he deposed that he does not remember the exact DD No. through which they reached at the spot. He further deposed that he does not remember the exact seal which was used by the IO to seal his uniform and he also deposed that he does not remember that after using the seal, to whom it was handed over by him. However, he admitted that IO did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo.
13. Perusal of the file would further show that prosecution thereafter examined PW2 SI Akhil, PW3 ASI Rajdeep, PW4 HC Sanjeev, PW5 ASI Naresh, PW6 HC Deepak, PW7 HC Sonu, PW8 SI Sumit and PW9 SI Shikshit. It is pertinent here to mention that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are police witnesses.
14. Although it is true that non-joining of independent witnesses cannot be a sole ground to discard the evidence of police witnesses, however, evidence in every case is to be weighed in light of the peculiar facts of the case. In the present case, as per the version of PW9/IO SI Shikshit himself, the spot was a public place. He has admitted that no notice was issued by him to the public persons who refused to join investigation. The FIR No. 271/2017 Digitally PS Jyoti Nagar signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs. Harender Kumar SAINI 20/ 23 Date:
2025.09.26 17:01:14 +0530 time of incident is of around 8.00 pm. The IO has himself admitted in his cross examination that the spot was a public place where public persons were coming and going, Therefore, it was not late at night and the availability of public persons at/near the place of incident is undeniable. 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 and there is no cogent explanation by the prosecution witnesses in this regard.
15. Further, it is stated by PW9/IO SI Shikshit that he did not prepare seal handing over memo or receiving over memo of the seal after the usage. There is no separate handing over/ taking over memo of the seal in the present matter and even otherwise, the seal was given to a member of police officer and not to any public person. What was the fate of the seal remains unexplained. The links are missing and benefit of the same can only go to the accused.
16. Perusal of the file would further shows that PW1 HC Parvesh in his deposition specifically stated that he was on patrolling duty along with SI Akhil, HC Rajdeep, HC Naresh and Ct. Yogesh, however, site plan, personal search memo of accused and statement of the complainant bears the signatures of the complainant and the IO SI Shikshit and further the arrest memo and seizure memo of the case property bears the signatures of SI Akhil, HC Parvesh and SI Shikshit. It clearly shows that despite the presence of other witnesses, even though police witnesses their signatures were not taken on the above said documents and Digitally signed by RAHUL FIR No. 271/2017 RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.09.26 PS Jyoti Nagar 17:01:26 +0530 State vs. Harender Kumar 21/ 23 thus, clearly violates the principle which requires that arrest and seizure documents be attested by independent witnesses to ensure fairness and absence of such safeguards raises the suspicious on the veracity of the documents.
17. Perusal of the file would further show that PW7 and PW9 received DD entry No. 85 B dated 19.07.2017 regarding the beating to the police officials. DD entry No. 85 B which is Ex. A2 perused. However, it is pertinent here to mention that sanction received u/s 195 Cr.P.C from ACP which is Ex. A4 clearly states that on 30.07.2018, a PCR call vide DD No. 89-B was received at PS Jyoti Nagar stating that:- " some persons were running via white colour i20 bearing registration No. DL 1Z 6889 near MIG Flats after snatching things from a person including one police official" . Perusal of the Sanction which is Ex. A4 and the testimonies of PW7 and PW9 along with DD No. 85-B dated 19.07.2017 which is Ex. A2. It clearly shows that Sanction in this case suffers from contradictions. Further, Superior Officers who allegedly gave sanction was not examined. It has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases that in the absence of proper sanction/complaint strikes at the root of the jurisdiction.
18. Perusal of the file would further reveals that there are contradictions between the testimonies of witnesses as to when site plan and memos were prepared. Such contradictions are material as they suggest that the documents are not prepared contemporaneously.
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.09.26 17:01:33 +0530 FIR No. 271/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar State vs. Harender Kumar 22/ 23
19. It is settled law that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the case reported at AIR 1956 Cr.L.J 1234, it was held that:
" In the event of any doubt as to the guilt of accused, the benefit will go to the accused'.
20. Keeping in view the depositions of prosecution witnesses and other material available on record, this court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. Hence, accused Harender Kumar S/o Shri Shyam Singh stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 186/353/333 IPC.
21. Accused is directed to furnish the bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C.
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.09.26 17:01:39 Announced in the Open Court (Rahul Saini) +0530 on 26.09.202 Judicial Magistrate First Class-08, Shahdara DistrictKarkardooma 26.09.2025 [This judgment contains 23 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation. } FIR No. 271/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar State vs. Harender Kumar 23/ 23