Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Judgment Of State Of H P vs . Tarachand And Others 2007 (1) on 27 February, 2012

                    :1:   State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

     IN THE COURT OF MANISH KHURANA 
         MM : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI


                  JUDGMENT

SATATE V. RANBIR SINGH ETC.

a) The FIR of the case            : 372/2000
b) The date of commission of      : 06.09.2000
   offence


c) The name of the                : Sh. R.K. Gupta (JE/Elect), 
   complainant                      M.J.E. Daryapur, Sub Zone, 
                                    Bawana, Delhi.
d) The name, parentage,           : 1. Ranbeer Singh, 
   address of accused.              s/o Sh. Jai Chand, 
                                    r/o. House No. 505, Village 
                                    Nangal Thakran, Delhi. 

                                     2. Satish Chander,  
                                     s/o Sh. Ziley Singh, 
                                     r/o. House No. 156, Village 
                                     Nangal Thakran, Delhi. 
e) The offence complained of      : 186/353/34 IPC
f) The plea of the accused        : Not guilty
g) Date of Institution            : 22.03.2001
h) The date on which the          : 17.02.2012
   judgment was reserved

FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :2: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

        i) The final order                     : Convicted 
        j) The date of such order              : 27.02.2012

        k) The Unique Identification             02404R0259112001
           Number

Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:­

1. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.09.2000 at about 11.00­11:30 p.m., accused Ranbir Singh and Satish along with other persons (not known) in furtherance of their common intention misbehaved and manhandled Sh. R.K. Gupta, JE Electricity, Daryapur, Bawana at Prima School in Nangal Thakran Village, Bawana and obstructed the complainant from supervising and checking the work at the site and thereby they committed an offence punishable u/s 186/353/34 IPC.

2. The matter was investigated by the police and a charge sheet U/s 186/353/34 IPC was filed against the accused Ranbir and Satish.

3. From the material on record, charge u/s 186/353/34 IPC was made out against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :3: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

claimed trial.

4. To support its case the prosecution has examined eight witness.

5. PW­1 Surender has deposed that he did not know anything about the case and nothing happened in his presence. However, he stated that he knew accused Ranbir and Satish Chander, present in court as they were known to him from last about one year. He deposed that he was working with a contractor in NDPL but he did not know any person with the name of R.K. Gupta and he deposed that nothing happened in his presence. PW1 Surender was cross­ examined by the prosecution with the permission of the court as he was found resiling from his previous statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by police and during his cross­examination by Ld. APP, he admitted that he was doing work of electricity with contractor Jagbir Khatri. He deposed that he had concern with T.O. i.e. subordinate of JE. He deposed that if the complainant was not heard by T.O. then the complaint was to be referred to JE and Executive Engineer. However, he did not know who was JE and Ex. Engineer at the relevant time. Statement of witness Mark A read over to him but he denied having made any such statement to FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :4: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

the police. He denied the suggestion that he was not deposing the true fact as he had been won over by the accused.

6. PW1 Surender was not cross­examined by the accused.

7. PW­2 ASI Rajender Singh deposed that on 08.09.2000, he was posted at PS Bawana as Duty Officer and his duty hours were from 4 pm to 12 midnight. On that day, one complaint was received at the PS at about 7:30 pm for registration of case. On the basis of same, he registered the FIR No. 372/2000, u/s 353/186 IPC in his handwriting. He brought the original FIR. Copy of same is Ex.PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A. He also made endorsement on the complaint from point A to A.

8. PW2 ASI Rajender was not cross­examined by the accused.

9. PW3 Sh. R.K. Gupta deposed that on 06.09.2000, he was posted as Superintendent/JE (Electrical) at Dariya Pur Sub Zone. On that day, maintenance of LT Supply Line was being carried on at Village Nangal Thakran, Near Village Park, Near Canal at about FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :5: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

11/11:30 am. The contract of work was given to a firm and worker of that firm were doing the work and he was supervising the work. Some persons of village had laid down wires of TV cable and those cable wires were entangled with their wires. When their work was going on, some persons came there and started quarrelling with him and his workman. Those persons started manhandling him and he was pushed on a two wheeler scooter parked near the road side. Accused persons also tried to slap him. Complainant identified both the accused persons, present in court and deposed that they were the same persons who had pushed him. On 08.09.2000, he made a complaint to SHO, Bawana for taking appropriate action against accused persons. His complaint is Ex.PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A.

10. During the cross­examination by Sh. Ranbir Vats, Ld. Counsel for accused Ranbir, PW3 R.K. Gupta deposed that the incident took place in Village Nangal Thakran, near canal. He visited the spot on 06.09.2000 at about 11/11:15 am, he reached at the spot on his scooty no. DLSK 7134, however, he admitted that this fact is not mentioned in his complaint. He deposed that he reached at the FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :6: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

spot with the workers of private contractor. He could not recollect the names of those workers. He admitted that on 06.09.2000, he had not made any complaint to the police, however, he had reported the matter to his senior officers. He had gone to the PS personally after 3­4 days of the incident. His statement was not recorded at the PS but he gave a written complaint to the police. He admitted that he did not know the names of all those accused persons but he identified both accused persons present in court, as prior to the incident, he knew these accused persons by face and not by name and he knew them being in public office of that area. He admitted that he did not call the police on the date of incident. Except him and his workers, there were 8­10 public persons at the spot at the time of incident. He denied the suggestion that no such incident took place or that he had made a false complaint against the accused persons.

11. Ld. Counsel for accused Satish filed an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for cross­examination of PW3 R K Gupta as he was not cross­ examined on behalf of accused Satish. The aforesaid application was allowed vide order dated 03.05.2011 and PW3 was recalled for further cross­examination and while his cross­examination by FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :7: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

counsel for accused Satish, he admitted that the spot was a public place. He deposed that he did not remember as to how many papers he had signed in P. S. He admitted that he had visited the police station only once and site plan did not bear his signature. He denied the suggestion that he had not mentioned the role of each accused person in committing the offence in his complaint. He further deposed that he could not say as to how the accused person knew him as the public servant as he was in civil dress and the work of repairing of L­T lines was going on. He also admitted that he could not say as to whether the accused persons knew him as a public servant or not. He also admitted that no particular dress code was provided for his job. He admitted that he did not know that as to whether the accused persons were present there or not as he did not know them previously. He admitted that he did not know the accused persons earlier. He could not tell the names of the workers who were doing the work of repairing under his supervision. He admitted that he reached the spot of occurrence on his private vehicle and there was no identification mark or official vehicle with him so as to show that he was the public servant at the spot. He admitted that he did not lodge the police FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :8: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

complaint on the date of offence i.e. 06.09.00. He admitted that his department also did not lodge police complaint on the date of occurrence i.e. 06.09.00. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were not present at the spot on the date of occurrence. He also admitted that public gathered there and told him the names of the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

12.PW­4 Upender deposed that he did not know anything about this case. Police never met him nor his statement was recorded in connection with the present case. He was cross­examined by the prosecution with the permission of the court as he was found resiling from his previous statement recorded by the police and then his statement Mark A was read over and explained to him and he denied that he had ever made any such statement to the police. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused persons or that he was deposing falsely.

13. PW­4 was not cross­examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.

FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :9: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

14. PW­5 Sh. Naresh Kumar deposed that he did not know anything about the case. Police never met him nor his statement was recorded in connection with the present case. He was cross­ examined by the prosecution with the permission of the court as he was resiling from his previous statement recorded by the police and then his statement Mark B was read over and explained to him and he denied that he had ever made any such statement to the police. He denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons or that he was deposing falsely.

15. PW­5 was not cross­examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.

16. PW­6 Ct. Ajit Singh deposed that on 08.09.2000, he was posted at PS Bawana as Constable. On that day, he joined investigation in the present case and had accompanied IO­HC Naresh Kumar to primary school village, Nangal Thakran, Delhi where IO had prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. Thereafter, they tried to trace out the accused persons but they FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :10: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

could not be traced. His statement was recorded by the IO.

17. PW­6 was not cross­examined by the accused persons.

18. PW­7 ASI Raj Kumar deposed that on 04.10.2000, he was posted at PS Bawana as HC. On that day, investigation of the present case was marked to him. On 09.12.2000, accused Ranbir and Satish were arrested on the identification of the complainant Sh. R.K. Gupta from village Nangal Thakran, Delhi. Arrest memo and personal search memo in this regard are Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/D. Both accused were released on bail on producing their surety. Bail bond and personal bond in this regard are Ex.PW7/E and Ex.PW7/F. He had recorded the statement of complainant and that of Ct. Hazari Lal who accompanied him to Village Nangal Thakran. Thereafter, he returned to the PS. He completed the investigation, prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court through SHO. He also identified both accused, present in court.

19. PW­7 was not cross­examined by the accused persons.

20. PW8 ASI Naresh Kumar deposed that on 08.09.2000, he was FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :11: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

posted at PS Bawana as HC. On that day, carbon copy of the FIR and original complaint of the present case was handed over to him for investigation by the Duty Officer. He along with Ct. Ajit Kumar had reached at the spot of incident at Primary School Village Nangal Thakran, Delhi. Complainant R.K. Gupta had also accompanied them from the PS to the spot. He prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant which is Ex.PW8/A. Thereafter, he tried to trace out the accused persons but they could not be traced. He recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Surender Singh, Naresh Kumar, Upender Kumar, Nand Lal and Ct. Ajit Singh. Thereafter, they returned to the PS. Thereafter, he was transferred and he handed over the case file to MHCR.

21. PW­8 was not cross­examined by the accused persons.

22.Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused persons u/s. 313 Cr. P.C were recorded and they denied all the allegations against them and pleaded that they were innocent and they opted not to lead any defence evidence.

FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :12: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

23.I have heard Ld. Counsel for accused and Ld. APP for the State and have perused the record.

24. In this case, the complainant PW3 Sh. R K Gupta has deposed that on 06.09.2000, he was posted as Superintendent/JE (Electrical) at Daryapur Sub Zone and on that day, maintenance of LT supply line was being carried out at Village Nangal Thakran and the contract of work was given to a private firm and workers of that firm were doing the work and he was supervising the same. When the workers were doing the work, some persons came there and started quarreling with them and also with the complainant. Thereafter, those persons started manhandling him and he was pushed on a two wheeler scooter parked near the roadside. The complainant duly identified the accused Ranbir and Satish in the court as the persons who had pushed him. The complainant made a complaint to concerned SHO which is Ex.PW3/A.

25. During the cross­examination of the complainant, he admitted that he reached the spot on his scooty bearing no. DLSK 7134. He also admitted that he did not make any police complaint on the date of offence and he did not call the police on the date of incident. The FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :13: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

complainant also admitted that there were 8­10 public persons present at the spot at the time of incident and the spot was a public place. He further admitted that he could not say as to how the accused persons knew him being the public servant as he was in civil dress. He further added that no particular dress code was provided for his job. He further stated that he did not know the accused persons previously. He could not tell the names of the workers who were doing the work of repairing under his supervision. He also admitted that he reached the spot of occurrence on his private vehicle and there was no identification mark or official vehicle with him so as to show that he was a public servant present at the spot.

26. In this case, the other public witnesses i.e. PW1 Surender, PW4 Upender and PW5 Naresh have not supported the case of prosecution and they stated that they did not know anything about this case and their statements were also not recorded by the police.

27. The case of the prosecution is that both the accused persons manhandled the complainant Sh. R K Gupta who was JE Electrical and the case u/s 186/353/34 IPC was registered. So far as offence u/s 186 IPC is concerned, the offence under this section is FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :14: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

committed when the accused voluntarily obstructs any public servant in discharge of his public functions. So far as Section 353 IPC is concerned, the same is attracted when any person being a public servant in execution of his duties as such public servant is assaulted or criminal force is used against him.

28. Therefore, for attracting the aforesaid provisions of law, it is necessary that accused persons had the intention to cause obstruction to a public servant and it is necessary that accused persons knew that a public servant in discharge of his official duties is being obstructed or assaulted. However, in the present case, the complainant Sh. R K Gupta has admitted in his cross­ examination that he reached the spot of occurrence on his private vehicle i.e. scooty and there was no official dress for him. He further admitted that he could not say as to whether accused persons knew him as a public servant or not. He further admitted that there was no identification mark on official vehicle with him so as to show that he was a public servant present at the spot. Admittedly the wire repairing work was going on which was conducted by the workers of a private firm and there was no occasion for the accused persons to know that the complainant Sh.

FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :15: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

R K Gupta was a public servant discharging his official duties at the spot. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also relied upon the Judgment of State of H P Vs. Tarachand and others 2007 (1) CCC 840 H P which fits the factual matrix of the case in hand and in the aforesaid Judgment, it was held that when there is a complete silence about the motive of assault, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 353 IPC. Considering the testimony of the complainant, it cannot be presumed that accused persons knew that the complainant was a public servant discharging his official duties.

29.Further Section 195 Cr.P.C. states that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable u/s 172 to 188 IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the case in hand, no such complaint by Sh. R K Gupta has been made before the court and the complaint was given to the SHO concerned upon which the present FIR was registered.

30.Ld. APP for the State, however, argues that since the complainant Sh. R K Gupta was a JE Electrical supervising his work at the spot, therefore, both the accused persons should be convicted for the FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :16: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

offence u/s 186/353/34 IPC.

31. Considering the above said discussion, I do not agree with the submissions made by Ld. APP for the State because to secure the conviction of the accused persons, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubts the ingredients of Section 186/353/34 IPC on record and that the accused voluntarily and intentionally caused obstruction to a public servant. However, as per the testimony of the complainant himself, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons had the knowledge that Sh. R K Gupta was a public servant discharging his officials duties at the spot and no formal complaint was made to the court by the complainant in compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

32.Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 186/353/34 IPC. Consequently, both the accused are acquitted for the same.

33.It is also pertinent to mention that according to the testimony of the complainant R K Gupta, he was manhandled by accused persons and he was also pushed on his two wheeler scooter. The complainant has duly identified both the accused persons in the court and so far as use of force is concerned the complainant stood FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC :17: State V. RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

well during his cross­examination.

34. Section 350 IPC defines criminal force as "whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other. (illustration (d))

35. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that both the accused persons intentionally used criminal force against the complainant Sh. R K Gupta. Accordingly, both the accused, namely, Ranbir and Satish stands convicted for the offence u/s 352/34 IPC. Let they be heard on the point of sentence.

Announced in the open court today i.e. on 27.02.2012 (MANISH KHURANA) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR NO. 372/00, PS BAWANA U/S. 186/353/34 IPC