Delhi District Court
State vs Ashok on 30 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYANKA RAJPOOT
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNT02-000452-2012
Cr. Case No. 5283287/2016
FIR No. 165/2011
State v. Ashok
U/s 186/353/332/341 IPC
PS Alipur
JUDGMENT
Date of Institution 04.07.2012
Date of commission of offence 13.05.2011
Name of the complainant SI Sandeep
Name of the accused Ashok,
S/o Sh. Lekh Raj,
R/o Flat No.493, Pocket-1,
Sector-B4, Narela, Delhi
Offences charged with U/s 186/353/332/341 of IPC
Plea of guilt Pleaded not guilty
Date of conclusion of final 13.12.2025
arguments
Date of pronouncement of 30.01.2026
judgment
Final Order Conviction
BRIEF FACTS
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.05.2011 at about 3:00 PM, at House No. Flat No. B-4/493, Police Colony, Narela, within the jurisdiction of PS Alipur, the accused Ashok Chauhan FIR No. 165/2011 PS Alipur State v. Ashok 1/14 obstructed public servants SI Sandeep Tushir and SI Neeraj while they were discharging their official duties, wrongfully restrained them, assaulted them, used criminal force to deter them from duty and caused them simple injuries while he was under the influence of liquor, thereby committed the offences punishable under sections 186/353/332/341 IPC.
FRAMING OF CHARGE
2. On appearance, the accused was supplied with the copies of chargesheet and supporting documents. Upon finding sufficient material on record against the accused, charges were framed for the offences punishable under sections 186/353/332/341 IPC against him on 02.04.2013. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. Before proceeding further, this court deems it appropriate to discuss the gist of testimonies of the following prosecution witnesses :-
3.1. PW-1 Ct. Azad Singh testified that on 13.05.2011, on receipt of DD No.31A, he alongwith SI Mukesh went to the spot and took SI Sandeep, SI Neeraj, accused and his wife to SRHC Hospital for medical examination. The IO prepeared rukka and handed over him for registration of the FIR. Thereafter, he came back at the spot alongwith rukka and copy of FIR and handed over them to the IO.
FIR No. 165/2011 PS Alipur State v. Ashok 2/14 The uniform of SI Sandeep was in torn condition. They brought the accused to the police station.
3.2. PW-2 Dr. Mazhar Hussain, the Medical Officer examined SI Neeraj, SI Sandeep and Preeti vide MLCs Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B & Ex.PW2/C and opined the nature of injuries as simple caused by blunt object.
3.3. PW-3 SI Neeraj deposed that on 13.05.2011, he was on emergency and patrolling duty along with SI Sandeep Tushir. On receipt of a PCR call, they reached Police Colony, Narela, where a PCR van was already present. At the spot, they met complainant Preeti and the accused Ashok Chauhan. While SI Sandeep was recording Preeti's statement, the accused started beating Preeti. When SI Sandeep intervened, the accused abused and manhandled him. PW-3 intervened to rescue SI Sandeep, whereupon the accused pushed PW-3, causing him to fall on the ground. The accused tore uniform of SI Sandeep and both officers sustained injuries. The accused attempted to flee but fell down due to intoxication and was apprehended.
3.3.1. Thereafter, on information given to the police station, SI Mukesh Rana and Ct. Azad arrived and the injured were taken to hospital. The IO seized the torn uniform, sealed with the seal "MR" and later seized the broken name plate and torn shoulder flap with stars. PW-3 identified the accused in court. He proved the following FIR No. 165/2011 PS Alipur State v. Ashok 3/14 documents:-
a) Ex. P-1 : Torn police uniform (shirt) of SI Sandeep.
b) Ex.P-2 (colly) : Broken name plate and torn shoulder flap with stars.
c) Ex.PW3/A : Seizure memo of broken name plate and torn shoulder flap.
3.4. PW-4 ASI Virender, Duty Officer proved the FIR No.165/2011, PS Alipur as Ex.PW4/A (OSR) and the endorsement made on the rukka as Ex.PW4/B. After registration of FIR, he handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Azad Singh to give the same to SI Mukesh.
3.5. PW-5 W/ASI Sumitra, deposed that on 13.05.2011, while posted as DD writer at PS Alipur, she received information at about 2:40 PM regarding a quarrel at B-4, Police Colony. The information was recorded vide DD No. 21A, Ex.PW5/A (OSR) and its copy was handed over to SI Sandeep for action.
3.6. PW-6 Mrs. Preeti (Wife of Accused) deposed that on 13.05.2011, she made a call to 100 number as she was afraid due to a quarrel with her husband. Police officials came and took the accused with them. She denied being beaten or abused by the accused and stated that nothing else occurred in her presence.
3.6.1. She was declared hostile and cross-examined by the FIR No. 165/2011 PS Alipur State v. Ashok 4/14 Ld. APP. During cross-examination, she admitted her marriage with the accused in 1998, that she was living with him, that the accused was taken to hospital for medical examination and that she accompanied him. She admitted her signatures on the arrest memo Ex. PW6/A, personal search memo Ex.PW6/B and seizure memo Ex.PW6/C but denied the incident of assault, intoxication of the accused or misbehavior with police officials and stated that she wanted to finish the case.
3.7. PW-7 Retired ACP Harpal Singh, deposed that on 13.05.2011, SI Neeraj and SI Sandeep went to attend a quarrel call vide DD No. 21A at B-4, Police Colony, Alipur, where they were assaulted by the accused Ashok Kumar. On further information vide DD No. 31A, SI Mukesh was deputed for investigation. On the basis of the statement of SI Sandeep, the case was registered and investigated. As the assaulted officers were subordinate to him, PW-7 filed a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW7/A and forwarded the charge-sheet after completion of investigation. He accorded sanction to prosecute the accused.
3.8. PW-8 SI Sandeep Tushir (Complainant/Police Officer) deposed that on 13.05.2011, while he was on emergency duty, he received a PCR call vide DD No. 21A and reached Flat No. 493, B-4, Police Colony, Narela with SI Neeraj regarding a quarrel between husband and wife.
FIR No. 165/2011 PS Alipur State v. Ashok 5/14 While recording the statement of Preeti, the accused Ashok Chauhan abused and manhandled her. When PW-8 intervened, the accused quarreled with him; on intervention by SI Neeraj, the accused pushed SI Neeraj to the ground. The accused tore official uniform of PW-8, broke the name tag, buttons and shoulder flap. The accused attempted to escape but fell down due to intoxication and was apprehended.
3.8.1. PW-8 informed PS at about 4:50 PM. SI Mukesh and Ct. Azad arrived and took the injured and accused to SRHC Hospital for medical examination. The statement of PW-8 was recorded Ex. PW8/A; the torn uniform and later the broken uniform parts were seized. The accused was arrested and personally searched. PW-8 identified the accused and the case property in court. He proved the following documents:-
a) Ex. PW6/C: Seizure memo of torn uniform.
b) Ex. PW3/A - Sealed pullanda containing uniform and broken name tag/shoulder flap (opened in court).
3.9. PW-9 Inspector Mukesh Rana investigated the present case. He deposed on the same lines as PW-1 Ct. Azad. He further deposed that he arrested and personally searched accused vide memos Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B. He prepared site plan at the instance of SI Sandeep and SI Neeraj as Ex.PW9/C. He also seized one flap with star and FIR No. 165/2011 PS Alipur State v. Ashok 6/14 piece of shoulder and piece of name plate bearing only monogram of Delhi Police vide memo Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet accordingly.
4. No other witness was examined in PE and therefore, PE was closed. The matter was proceeded to the stage of examination of the accused under section 313 of Cr.PC.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED U/S 313 OF Cr.P.C.
5. On 12.02.2024, statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and all the incriminating material in evidence was put to him. He denied all allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated. He preferred to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE AND FINAL ARGUMENTS
6. Accused examined one witness, in his defence, namely, Sh. Mahender Singh as DW-1, who deposed that on 13.05.2011, he was present at his house and at about 4:00 PM, there was small quarrel between the accused and his wife and PCR call was made by his wife Preeti. Two police officials came to the house of accused Ashok. He and accused Ashok requested the PCR officials that the matter was a domestic dispute and was already settled between them. However, police officials took both the accused and his wife to police station. There was no altercation between the accused Ashok and PCR officials in his presence. Accused had not torn the uniform of police officials in his FIR No. 165/2011 PS Alipur State v. Ashok 7/14 presence. Police officials from PS Alipur never visited the house of accused.
7. Thereafter, accused did not examine any other witness. Accordingly, defence evidence was closed and the matter was posted for final arguments, which were heard on 13.12.2025.
8. I have given due consideration to the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and have perused the record thoroughly.
ISSUE AND LAW
9. Based on the charge framed and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the primary issue in this case is :
Whether the accused Ashok Chauhan obstructed public servants SI Sandeep Tushir and SI Neeraj while they were discharging their official duties, wrongfully restrained them, assaulted them, used criminal force to deter them from duty and caused them simple injuries, thereby committing offences punishable under sections 186/353/332/341 IPC?
10. In order to appreciate and ascertain the aforesaid issue, it is necessary to refer to the statutory provisions of 186/353/332/341 of IPC, which read as under:-
"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 FIR No. 165/2011 PS Alipur State v. Ashok 8/14 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 extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.--Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
11. The prosecution has alleged that on 13.05.2011, on receipt of PCR call regarding a quarrel, PW-8 SI Sandeep Tushir and PW-3 SI Neeraj, while acting in the discharge of their official duty, reached the spot i.e. Flat No.4/493, Police Colony, Narela, Delhi where the accused obstructed and caused simple injuries to them.
12. After carefully going through the entire material available on record and after giving thoughtful consideration to the rival FIR No. 165/2011 PS Alipur State v. Ashok 9/14 submissions advanced by both the sides, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 332, 353 and 341 IPC.
13. At the outset, there is no dispute regarding the presence of the police officials/PW-3 and PW-8 at the spot. Both of them testified that they reached the spot on receiving a PCR call regarding a quarrel. Their version is duly corroborated by PW-5, who proved the PCR call/DD entry No.21A Ex.PW5/A, pursuant to which the said police officials proceeded to the spot.
14. It is also admitted by PW-6, the wife of the accused, as well as by the defence witness, that a PCR call regarding a quarrel was indeed made and that police officials reached the spot in response thereto. Thus, the foundational fact that the police officials (PW-3 & PW-8) were lawfully performing their public duties at the spot stands firmly established.
15. It has further come on record through the consistent testimonies of PW-3 SI Neeraj and PW-8 SI Sandeep Tushir that while PW-8 SI Sandeep Tushir was recording the statement of PW-6 Mrs. Preeti, the accused started abusing and manhandling his wife and upon intervention by the police officials, the accused voluntarily obstructed them from discharging their official duties and used criminal force against them.
16. PW-3 SI Neeraj specifically deposed that the accused FIR No. 165/2011 PS Alipur State v. Ashok 10/14 pushed him, causing him to fall on the ground. PW-8 deposed that the accused tore his official uniform, broke the name plate and shoulder flap and attempted to escape from the spot. Both these witnesses have identified the accused as the perpetrator of the incident and have corroborated each other on all material particulars relating to the occurrence, the manner of assault, the obstruction caused and the damage to the official uniform. Their testimonies inspire confidence and do not suffer from any material contradiction or inconsistency.
17. The offence under section 186 IPC stands proved as the evidence on record clearly establishes that the accused voluntarily obstructed public servants while they were lawfully discharging their official duties in response to a PCR call.
18. So far as the offences under Section 323, 353 & 341 IPC as concerned, there is cogent evidence on record which establishes that the accused not only obstructed but also used criminal force against the police officials with the clear intention of deterring them from performing their duties. The accused pushed PW-3, torn the official uniform of PW-8 SI Sandeep Tushir and physically assaulted them. The MLCs Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B corroborated their oral testimonies and proves that in the course of incident of physical assault, they sustained simple injuries.
19. Thus, the conduct of the accused in physically confronting and preventing them from freely performing their lawful duties at FIR No. 165/2011 PS Alipur State v. Ashok 11/14 the spot, satisfies ingredients of the offences u/s 353, 332 & 341 IPC.
20. The timeline of the event also add weight to the case of the prosecution. The first PCR call Ex.PW5/A was recorded at 2:40 PM. The subsequent information regarding physical assault was recorded vide DD no. 31A at 4:52 PM and the medical examination of the injured police officials was done at 5:40 PM. All these events occurred on the same day and within a short span of time, which rules out the possibility of any collusion. Further, the legal requirement of the complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C Ex.PW7/A has been duly proved by PW-7, the then ACP concerned.
21. The argument of the Ld. counsel for accused that the prosecution case is vitiated due to non-joining of independent public witnesses is devoid of merit. It is a settled proposition of law that conviction can be based on the testimony of police officials alone, provided their evidence is cogent, reliable and trustworthy. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act does not require any particular number of witnesses for proving a fact and it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence that is material.
22. The consistent and corroborative testimonies of PW-3 and PW-8 are sufficient to establish the prosecution case, especially when there is no material brought on record to suggest any prior enmity or motive on their part to falsely implicate the accused.
FIR No. 165/2011 PS Alipur State v. Ashok 12/14
23. The fact that PW-6, the wife of the accused, resiled from her earlier statement does not demolish the prosecution case. It is evident from her testimony that she is still residing with the accused and has expressed her desire to end the case, which clearly explains her reluctance to support the prosecution. It is well settled that the testimony of a hostile witness does not efface the prosecution case and the Court is entitled to rely upon the trustworthy portion of the evidence on record. Even PW-6 admitted the making of the PCR call and the arrival of police officials at the spot, which lends support to the prosecution version regarding the genesis of the incident.
24. Similarly, the testimony of the defence witness i.e. DW-1, to the extent that a quarrel took place and PCR officials reached the spot, rather strengthens the prosecution case on material aspects. His denial of the assault does not outweigh the consistent and reliable testimonies of the injured police officials, whose presence at the spot and involvement in the incident has been well explained and established by the prosecution.
25. On the other hand, there are material inconsistencies in the version of the defence. During recording of statement of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., he did not mention the presence of DW-1 at the spot. Instead, he stated that his wife (PW-6) made the PCR call on the instigation of her brother Bhupender and when the police officials arrived, they misbehaved with PW-6. However, PW-6, in her testimony, did not depose about any incident of misbehaviour by the police officials nor did she FIR No. 165/2011 PS Alipur State v. Ashok 13/14 mention about the presence of DW-1 at the spot. Thus, the discrepancies in the version of the defence makes it unreliable.
26. Further, there is no material on record to suggest that PW-3, PW-7 or PW-8 had any motive to falsely implicate the accused or to fabricate evidence against him. Thus, it appears highly improbable that multiple police officials would conspire to falsely implicate the accused, who is also a police officer, in a serious offence involving tearing of uniform and assault, merely to settle personal scores, particularly when no such motive has been suggested or proved by the defence.
27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily obstructed public servants in discharge of their official duties, used criminal force against them and wrongfully restrained them. Accordingly, the accused is held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 332, 353 and 341 IPC.
28. Accused be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed by Priyanka Priyanka Rajpoot
Date:
Rajpoot 2026.02.02
17:12:07
+0530
Announced in the open court (Priyanka Rajpoot)
on 30.01.2026 Chief Judicial Magistrate
North, Rohini Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 165/2011 PS Alipur State v. Ashok 14/14