Delhi District Court
State vs Rishipal & Anr. on 27 September, 2018
State v. Rishipal & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV MEHTA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH) 05,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus Rishipal & Anr.
FIR No. 637/06
PS Mehrauli
U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1 Serial No. of the case : 2033729/2016
2 Date of commission : 10.09.2006
3 Date of institution of the case : 03.06.2009
4 Name of complainant : Ct. Jagjivan Ram
5 Name of accused : (I) Rishipal S/o Sh. Kanwar
Singh, R/o Fatehpur, New
Delhi (Abated).
(II) Mothan Singh S/o Sh.
Durga Singh, R/o Fatehpur,
New Delhi
6 Offence complained of : U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC
7 Plea of accused : Plead not guilty
Digitally
8 Arguments heard on : 27.09.2018 signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV MEHTA
9 Final order : Acquitted MEHTA Date:
2018.09.29
10 Date of judgment : 27.09.2018
14:48:51
+0530
FIR No. 637/2006, PS: Mehrauli 1 of 12
State v. Rishipal & Anr.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 10.09.2006 at about 06.30 pm, at Main road, Satbadi Village, New Delhi, both accused and other two unknown persons obstructed public servant namely Ct. Jagjivan Ram, No. 290/SSG J. K. Police (CM's security) from discharging him his public function i.e. quarreled with complainant when he was moving in conclave as security personnel for Chief Minister and caused simple hurt for the purposes of obstructing public servant and also used criminal force in order to deter public servant namely Ct. Jagjivan Ram from discharging his public function. Accordingly the FIR u/s 186/332/353/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons.
2. During course of trial, proceedings qua accused Rishipal were abated vide order dated 04.02.2010.
ADMISSION U/S 294 Cr.PC
3. During the course of evidence, statement of accused was recorded under section 294 Cr.PC wherein he did not dispute the identity of certain documents and admitted the same in terms of section 294 Cr.PC. Accused had admitted the following document i.e. FIR No. 673/2006 as Ex. A1.
FIR No. 637/2006, PS: Mehrauli 2 of 12
State v. Rishipal & Anr.
CHARGE
4. Prima facie case of commission of offences under Section 186/332/353/34 IPC was made out against accused Mothan Singh and charge u/s 186/332/353/34 IPC was framed upon accused Mothan Singh on 04.03.2011 wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION
5. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
PW1 Ct. Jagjivan Complainant
PW2 HC Rajinder Prepared rukka/ tehrir
PW3 HC Brij Bhushan Present with the complainant
PW4 HC Vinod Kumar Assisted the IO
PW5 HC Ram Niwas Assisted the IO
PW6 Insp. Rajesh Brar IO of present case
PW6 (wrongly SI Virender Singh 2nd IO of present case
mentioned)
PW7 Insp. Paras Nath Verma Received permission u/s 195
Cr.PC from J & K Police
PW8 Sh. Vikram Singh Proved complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC
FIR No. 637/2006, PS: Mehrauli 3 of 12
State v. Rishipal & Anr.
6. Prosecution has relied upon the following documents: Exhibited by Contents Exhibits PW1 Ct. Jagjivan Written complaint PW1/A Ram Site plan PW1/B Arrest memos PW1/C and PW1/D PW2 HC Rajinder Rukka/ tehrir PW2/A PW6 Insp. Rajesh Disclosure statements PW6/A and PW6/B Brar Seizure memo of car PW6/C Superdarinama PW6/D PW8 Sh. Vikram Complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC PW8/A Singh
7. PW1 Ct. Jagjivan deposed that on 10.09.2006, he gave written complaint as Ex.PW1/A and the police prepared site plan Ex. PW1/B at his instance.
8. PW2 HC Rajinder deposed that on 10.09.2006 he received DD No. 36B regarding quarrel at Satbari. Ct. Jagjivan gave him a written complaint and prepared rukka/ tehrir as Ex.PW2/A.
9. PW3 HC Brij Bhushan did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile.
FIR No. 637/2006, PS: Mehrauli 4 of 12 State v. Rishipal & Anr.
10. PW4 HC Vinod Kumar deposed that on 10.09.2006, he was on patrolling duty and when he reached at Satbadi village main road he found public persons were gathered there and police persons from J & K Police alongwith one car bearing no. CH 22 9824 was stopped by Alto car and there was scuffle between the persons sitting in Alto car and J & K Police staff. PW4 further stated that in the meanwhile, the magazine of AK47 of J & K Police fell down and one round was missing but same was not found and also deposed that the persons sitting in Alto car ran away from the spot.
11. PW5 HC Ram Niwas deposed that on 10.09.2006 at about 06.45 pm, after receiving call, he alongwith HC Rajender Prasad reached at Satbari Village, Main road and met Ct. Vinod and Ct. Jag Jivan and Ct. Brij Bhushan at the spot and told them that one carcade (kafila) was going from Satbari towards Ansal Plaza and one Alto car tried to come between carcade due to which one of government gypsy separated from the carcade and HC Rajender Prasad recorded the statement of Ct. Jag Jivan and prepared rukka and same was handed over to him for registration of FIR.
12. PW6 Insp. Rajesh Brar deposed that on 10.09.2006, he recorded disclosure statement of both accused vide memos Ex. PW6/A and PW6/B and also seized alto car bearing no. DL 3CAG FIR No. 637/2006, PS: Mehrauli 5 of 12 State v. Rishipal & Anr.
7378 vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C and released the same car on superdari vide superdarinama Ex. PW6/D.
13. PW SI Virender Singh (wrongly mentioned as PW6) deposed that on 20.09.2007, he collected the Xray report and Xray film of Ct. Jagjivan and on 23.11.2004 he forwarded a letter to SSP, Sri Nagar for providing the sanction under section 195 Cr.PC.
14. PW7 Insp. Paras Nath Verma deposed that on 27.02.2009, he received permission u/s 195 of Cr.PC from J& K Police through HC Ishwar Chand.
15. PW8 Vikram Singh deposed that he was acquainted with signature of Sh. Raja Aijaz Ali, IPS on the complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC and proved the same as Ex. PW8/A.
16. Thereafter, PE was closed on 13.08.2018 EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
17. Statements of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 28.08.2018 separately wherein he opted not to lead evidence in their defence.
FIR No. 637/2006, PS: Mehrauli 6 of 12
State v. Rishipal & Anr.
FINAl ARGUMENTS
18. The Ld. APP has submitted that prosecution witnesses have given consistent statements and statement of the complainant Ct. Jagjivan Ram finds corroboration from the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused persons beyond doubt. On the other hand, ld. Defence counsel has argued that there are material inconsistencies in the deposition of the complainant and they are at variance with other material on record. The counsel for the accused further argued that it is a false complaint and the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus of proof and so benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
19. This is a general section and is applicable in every case where a public servant is obstructed in the discharge of his functions. This section does not deal with obstruction of any public servant or of any person but with the obstruction of a proceeding conducted by a public servant.
This section requires two essentials: (1) Voluntary obstruction to a public servant (II) Such obstruction must be in the discharge of public functions of such public servant.
FIR No. 637/2006, PS: Mehrauli 7 of 12 State v. Rishipal & Anr.
Sections 186 and 353: Distinction Sections 186 and 353 relate to two distinct and separate offences. The ingredients of two offences are not the same. Whereas section 186 applies to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, section 353 requires assault or use of criminal force. The quality of the two offences is also different. An offence under section 353 is cognizable, but an offence under section 186 is non cognizable.
Voluntarily obstructs the use of the word 'voluntarily' indicates that the legislature contemplated the commission of some overt act of obstruction, and did not intend to render penal mere passive conduct. The word 'obstruction' means actual obstruction, i.e. actual resistance or obstacle put in the way of a public servant. The work implies the use of criminal force and mere threats or threatening language or mere abuse are not sufficient. In the discharge of his public functions: Public functions contemplated by this section mean legal or legitimately authorized public functions, and are not intended to cover any act, that a public functionary may choose to take upon himself to perform. It must be shown that the obstruction or resistence was offered to a public servant in the discharge of his duties or public functions, as authorized by law. The mere fact of a public servant believing that he was acting in the discharge of his duties will not be sufficient to FIR No. 637/2006, PS: Mehrauli 8 of 12 State v. Rishipal & Anr.
make resistance or obstruction to him amount to an offence.
Section 332 IPC defines 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.
COURT OBSERVATIONS
20. I have considered the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and of Ld. Defence counsel. I have also gone through the evidence on record very carefully and after assessing it, this court makes the following observations:
(a) PW1 Ct. Jagjivan Ram is the complainant and is the main witness of the prosecution witness who stated that on 10.09.2006 he was posted in CM (J & K) Security and while they were going in the carcade four boys in the Santro came from opposite side and stopped their vehicles after which the four boys attacked him and FIR No. 637/2006, PS: Mehrauli 9 of 12 State v. Rishipal & Anr.
gave him beatings as a result of which he sustained injuries and one round from the magazine got missing from his riffle.
(b) PW3 HC Brij Bhushan, PW4 HC Vinod Kumar, PW5 HC Ram Niwas in their examination in chief stated that it was infact an alto car that intercepted the official vehicle of the complainant and the four boys from the alto car got down and started quarrelling.
(c) PW6 Insp. Rajesh Brar has also deposed that it was an alto car which was the offending vehicle used by the accused persons and accused Rishipal (now deceased) was the owner of the alto car and it was him who was driving the said vehicle which inadvertently entered in between the carcade of the complainant and accused Mothan Singh alongwith two other villagers were also sitting in the car.
The IO has not specified any role of accused Mothan Singh w.r.t quarrel.
(d) There is material contradictions between the prosecution witnesses w.r.t offending vehicle in question.
(e) The MLC of complainant Ct. Jagjivan Ram is placed
FIR No. 637/2006, PS: Mehrauli 10 of 12
State v. Rishipal & Anr.
on record which shows time of arrival as 11.00 pm on 10.09.2006. Ct. Jagjivan Ram in his examination in chief stated that after the alleged incident he went to the hospital, got treated and thereafter went to PS Mehrauli to lodge the police complaint Ex.PW1/A.
(f) The testimonies of the complainant Ct. Jagjivan Ram inconsistent with the testimony of PW4 HC Vinod Kumar who stated that HC Rajinder recorded the statement of Ct. Jagjivan Ram and thereafter, Ct. Jagjivan Ram and Brij Bhushan were medically examined.
(g) The testimony of the complainant is also inconsistent with the testimony of HC Rajinder who stated in his cross examination that he recorded the statement of complainant at about 07.30 pm. The complainant has state that he gave his statement at the PS after getting himself medically examined and the time specified in the MLC is 11.00 pm, therefore, the testimony of HC Rajinder that he recorded the statement of complainant at 07.30 pm is in contradiction to the testimony of the complainant.
(h) This court after going through the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses is of the view that there are serious FIR No. 637/2006, PS: Mehrauli 11 of 12 State v. Rishipal & Anr.
inconsistencies between the testimonies of complainant and other prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the defence has been able to raise serious doubts compelling this court to give the benefit of doubts to the accused.
21. For the reasons mentioned above, this court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused Mothan Singh for offences u/s 186/332/353/34 IPC. Therefore, he is acquitted for offences u/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and he was directed to furnish bail bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC.
Announced in the open (VAIBHAV MEHTA)
court on 27.09.2018 MM5 (South), Saket Courts
New Delhi
FIR No. 637/2006, PS: Mehrauli 12 of 12