Delhi District Court
State vs Anil Kumar on 12 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Anil Kumar
FIR No : 110/2018
U/s : 186/332/5/353 IPC
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020342912018
2. Date of commission of offence : 11.07.2018
3. Date of institution of the case : 10.09.2018
: Dr. Mani Shankar
4. Name of the complainant
Madhav
5. Name of accused, parentage & : 1. Anil Kumar
address S/o Hawa Singh
2. Sunil Kumar
S/o Hawa Singh
3. Vimla
W/o Hawa Singh
All R/o RZ-101, Y-
Block, New Roshanpura,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 186/323/324/332/353/34
IPC and 3 & 4 DMSP
and MSI Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 12.11.2024
Argued by:- Mr. Pankaj Gulia, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Neeraj Dahiya, Ld. Counsel for accused
persons.
Digitally signed
by Abhinav
FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 1 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat
Date:
Ahlawat 2024.11.12
15:47:48
+0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.07.2018 at about 10:15 pm at RTRM Hospital, Delhi, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed Dr. Mani Shankar Madhav, who was working as Medical Officer RTRM Hospital, Jafarpur and they all used criminal force to deter him from discharging his duties and also voluntarily caused hurt by trying to hit him with an iron stool over his head and by slapping him and accused persons thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 186/323/332/353/34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Delhi Medicare Service Personnel and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred as DMSP and MSI Act), for which FIR no.110/18 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused persons was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, charge under Sections Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 2 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.11.12 15:47:56 +0530 186/323/332/353/34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DMSP and MSI Act was framed against the accused on 15.02.2021. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Mani Shankar Madhav PW-2 Dr. Rohita Kumari PW-3 HC Narender PW-4 HC Yashwant PW-5 Dr. Anil Yadav PW-6 SI Sumit Kataria PW-7 SI Leela Ram PW-8 Amit Kumar PW-9 Inspector Krishan Gopal DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW3/A Iron Stool Ex.PW4/A Site plan Ex.PW4/B Arrest memo qua accused Anil Kumar Ex.PW4/C Arrest memo qua accused Sunil Kumar Ex.PW4/D Personal search memo qua accused Anil Kumar Ex.PW4/E Personal search memo qua accused Sunil Kumar Ex.PW5/A Attested copy of record Ex.PW5/B Attendance register Ex.PW6/A Arrest memo qua accused Vimla Ex.PW6/B Disclosure statement qua accused Vimla Ex.PW6/C Seizure memo qua CCTV footage Ex.PW6/D Seizure memo qua iron stool Ex.PW6/E Seizure memo qua ruty roster Ex.PW6/F Duty roster Ex.PW7/A Tehrir Ex.PW8/A Certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act qua CCTV footage Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 3 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:48:00 +0530 ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.110/2018 Ex.A2 GD no.33A Ex.A3 Certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.A4 Complaint u/S 195 Cr. P. C. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
PW1 Dr. Mani Shankar Madhav deposed that on 11.07.2018, he was working from 08:00pm to 08:00 am as CMO RTRM Hospital. He further stated that wife of Anil had been referred to Gynae Department of Din Dayal Upadhyay Hospital at around 10:00 pm and that alongwith the patient, her husband Sh. Anil, Sh. Sunil and their mother Vimla were present. They had arguments with doctor at labour room as they were asking Dr. Rohita, to accompany with the patient to Din Dayal Hospital. Later, they all repeated the same things to him at Casualty. He tried to calm them down but they all were too aggressive and abused him. He send them back to labour room with a request that if Dr. Rohita suggest that a JR was required then he would provide the same. They went to labour room around 10:15 pm and then he got a call from labour room that they were misbehaving with the female doctor and making her video. He called the police for help. PW1 further stated that ambulance had come and the patient was shifted in the ambulance. Then the accused persons abused all doctors and medical staff with derogatory remarks. They also told that they all get salary from tax payers money and did not perform their work. When he Digitally signed Page 4 of 32 by Abhinav FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:48:05 +0530 requested them to stop accused Vimla slapped him tightly. Thereafter, one of the accused persons threw stool at hit him. His staff members had gathered around him after the accused slapped him. Ct. Narender who intervened got multiple injuries over his hand and he got injury over his left elbow. PCR had reached the spot. Patient was taken in the Ambulance and PCR took the accused persons to PS. The witness correctly identified the accused persons present in the court and iron stool as Ex.P1. In the cross-examination, he stated that there were multiple stools in the RTRM hospital similar to case property. He gave the written complaint to the police after about one hour of the incident at PS. IO did not record his statement except his written complaint. He further stated that CCTV cameras were installed in the RTRM hospital but none was working amongst them due to maintenance issue. He further stated that all equipment were available in the hospital relating to delivery of child and that whatever incident had happened with Dr. Rohita did not happen in his presence. He stated that whenever patient was used to refer in another hospital, they might accompany someone if required. He called at 100 number. It is correct that patient Jyoti was referred to DDU hospital and her attendant were insisting to accompany someone with them.
5. PW2 Dr. Rohita Kumari deposed that in year 2018, she was posted as Senior Resident (OBS and GYNAE) at RTRM hospital. She did not remember the date of the incident. After refreshing memory, witness stated that the date of incident was 11.07.2018. On the day of incident, she examined one patient namely Jyoti and she was medically fit for the purpose which was she admitted. When she again checked the said patient at about Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 5 of 32 Ahlawat Date:
2024.11.12 15:48:11 +0530 09:45pm, fetal heart rate was 90-100 bpm and liver was meconium stained. As there was not anaesthetist available at that time so the patient was referred to higher center DDU hospital for emergency LSCS. Attendant wanted her to accompany to DDU hospital. Witness could not identify the attendant. The attendant started to use abusive language and started video graphing her. Thereafter, she informed the said fact to CMO. On the day of incident, she was the only one doctor to attend the patients of depart OBS and Gynae. As PW2 did not support the case of prosecution on material facts, the Ld, APP was granted permission to put her questions in the nature of cross- examination, wherein she stated that she had not inquired whether the said attendant was husband of patient namely Anil. She denied the suggestion that she had been deposing falsely as she had been won over by accused persons. In the cross- examination, she stated that all equipment were available in the hospital relating to delivery of child except anesthetic. Generally, nursery orderly used to accompany the referred patient whenever they referred to another hospital.
6. PW3 HC Narender deposed that on 11.07.2018, he along with SI Leela Ram had gone to RTRM hospital for the medical examination of victim/injured but he did not remember the details of the case. It was about 10:00pm, two boys and one lady were quarreling with Dr. Madhav. He intervened the matter, during invention he sustained some abrasion. One of the boy took the stool for hitting to Dr. Madhav but he did not remember who out of two boys had taken the stool. He had got his medical examination done at RTRM hospital. The witness correctly identified the accused persons and iron stool as Ex.PW3/A. As Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 6 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:48:18 +0530 PW3 did not support the case of prosecution on material facts, the Ld, APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he stated that on 11.07.2018 at about 10:00pm he was sent by SI Leela Ram with Kapil S/o Satyaveer to get his medical examination done at RTRM hospital. At the time of incident, he was getting MLC of the said Kapil prepared by Dr. Mani Shanker Madhav at emergency, RTRM hospital. At the time of incident, accused persons Anil Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Vimla Devi were in a very angry state and they were using abusing words against Dr. Madhav and other doctors. Dr. Madhav tried to pacify them but they were not ready to listen. He had also tried to make them understand and asked them to listen to the doctor and bring the necessary documents as stated by the doctor. He stated that for once the accused persons left from there but they came back and started using abusive words with Dr. Madhav and they all three started quarreling with him. Accused Vimla had slapped Dr. Mani Shanker Madhav and accused Anil Kumar had picked up the iron stool kept there to hit Dr. Mani Shanker Madhav. He stated that he had stated in his statement to the IO that he got injured when he tried to intervene and the accused persons had not intentionally injured him. In the cross-examination, he stated that there were CCTV Cameras installed at the spot. He did not make any DD entry regarding his departure.
7. PW4 HC Yashwant deposed that on 12.07.2018, he joined the investigation in the present matter along with SI Krishan Gopal and they along with Dr. Mani Shanker Madhav left the PS and went to RTRM Hospital where SI Krishan Gopal prepared site plan at the instance of Dr. Mani Shanker Madhav in his my Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 7 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:48:38 +0530 presence Ex.PW4/A. IO recorded the statement of Dr. Mani Shanker Madhav and tried to check the CCTV camera footage but he was not able to do so as the operator was not present. Thereafter, he along with SI Krishan Gopal came back to the police station where IO interrogated the accused Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar but they were not cooperating in the investigation. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar vide separate arrest memos Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C and personally searched them vide personal search memos Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E. Medical examination of both the accused persons was got conducted and thereafter, they were produced before the Court. The witness correctly identified both the accused persons present in the court. In the cross-examination, he stated that the building of the police station and that of the hospital are adjacent to each other. IO had recorded his statement in his own handwriting. CCTV cameras were installed at RTRM hospital at the time of incident.
8. PW5 Dr. Anil Yadav deposed that on 08.09.2018, he provided to the IO certified copy of the duty roster of casualty from the month of July 2018 along with the attested copy of the day's attendance register of date 11.07.2018 and he proved the said documents as Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B. In the cross- examination, he stated that Dr. Mani Shanker Madhav was the CMO on 11.07.2018. The register brought by him was in the possession of Dr. Madhav himself on the day of incident. The entries shown in the said register Ex.PW5/B were not done in his presence. He did not have personal knowledge about the present matter. He could not say whether the entries in the register were later on manipulated or fabricated or not.
Digitally signed by AbhinavFIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 8 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:48:43 +0530
9. PW6 SI Sumit Kataria Yadav deposed that on 02.08.2018, the case file of the present matter was handed over to him for further investigation. On 09.08.2018, he formally arrested the accused Vimla at the police station vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A and recorded the disclosure statement of accused Vimla Ex.PW6/B. Thereafter, she was released on bail. He went to RTRM Hospital where he moved an application for taking permission U/s 195 Cr.PC from Dr. Vivek Ranjan. The doctor handed over to me the typed complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC which was put on record. He received CCTV footage in a CD regarding the incident in question vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C along with certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act qua the authenticity of the CCTV footage under the signatures of Amit Kumar, CCTV operator RTRM Hospital. He watched the CCTV footage and he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the Court. During investigation, he also seized the iron stool used during the incident by the accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/D. He had also seized the photocopy of the duty roster and the attendance register regarding the day of the incident vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/E. The witness correctly identified accused Vimla present in the court and case property/iron stool Ex.PW3/A. In the cross-examination, he stated that there was no CCTV camera installed at the actual place of incident. He had not mentioned this fact in the chargesheet filed by him. There was no specific mark of identification on the stool seized by him. He alone recorded the disclosure statement of Vimla and no other police official was present there at that time.
10. PW7 SI Leela Ram deposed that on 11.07.2018, he received DD No. 35A regarding a quarrel at hospital. Thereafter, he went to Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 9 of 32 Date:
Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:48:48 +0530 the hospital and met Dr. Madhav and Ct. Narender. They both produced accused Anil. They all then came to PS. Ct. Narender had received injuries on his hand and his medical examination was conducted. Dr. Madhav gave his complaint on which he prepared tehrir Ex.PW7/A and he handed over the tehrir to SI Krishan Gopal. In the cross-examination, he stated that Dr. Madhav had given handwritten complaint at PS and the same was written by him at PS.
11. PW8 Amit Kumar deposed regarding handing over CCTV footage of the present case in a CD to the IO Ex.P1 alongwith certificate U/s 65B of IEA in respect of the CCTV footage Ex.PW8/A. The CCTV footage was seized by the IO. In the cross-examination, he stated that there were 68 CCTV cameras at the hospital. No CCTV camera was installed inside the room of CMO and Dr. Rohita consultant OBGY.
12. PW9 Inspector Krishan Gopal deposed that investigation of the present case was marked to him after registration of FIR on 12.07.2018. During the investigation, he and Mani Shankar Madhav alongwith Ct. Yashwant reached at spot on 12.07.2018. After reaching the spot, he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant. During investigation, he tried to find out the CCTV camera at the spot and some CCTV cameras were found installed at the spot or near the spot. He served notice to MS Office for providing CCTV footage of the incident. Thereafter, he left the spot and reached at the PS. After reaching the PS, he met with accused persons namely Sunil and Anil. Thereafter, he arrested both the accused at PS and conducted personal search of accused persons. During investigation, he also obtained MLC Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 10 of 32 Date:
Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:48:54 +0530 result of injured persons namely Dr. Mani Shankar Madhav and Ct. Narender from RTRM hospital. Thereafter, he was transferred from the PS. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not record statement of public person. He did not obtain signatures of any public person on the site plan. Complainant was also working as a doctor at the time of incident at RTRM hospital. The MLCs of the injured persons were prepared by the doctors of RTRM hospital. He did not obtain opinion on the MLCs of injured persons from any other doctor or hospital except RTRM hospital.
13. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined, hence, P.E was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
14. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statement of the accused persons were recorded on 10.01.2024 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein they have stated that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. They further stated that they want to lead defence evidence.
ORAL EVIDENCE
DW-1 Anil Kumar
Digitally signed
Page 11 of 32
by Abhinav
FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Abhinav Ahlawat
Ahlawat Date:
2024.11.12
15:49:00 +0530
15. DW1 Anil Kumar deposed that on 10.07.2018, his wife namely Jyoti was pregnant and due to the said fact, he took her to RTRM Hospital for delivery at about 11:00 pm. Thereafter, the RTRM Hospital formally admitted his wife for the purpose of delivery. On the next date i.e. 11.07.2018, his wife was already been taken to the labour room thrice but the delivery could not happen. In the meantime, they were constantly asking for updates from the treating doctor, who stated that his wife was being administered the injection regularly. At about 09:30 pm on 11.07.2018, the staff in the labour room gave back the file of his wife stating that condition of his wife was serious as the heart beat of the fetus was low and the water surrounding the fetus was getting dry and asked us to take my pregnant wife to some other hospital. He immediately called and arranged one ambulance and when the ambulance with the attending staff arrived, upon looking the condition of his wife, he asked him to ask the RTRM hospital to send a doctor alongwith his wife in the ambulance. He immediately asked the emergency doctors on the ground floor for sending one doctor for which they asked him to go to the labour room for the said doctor. He went upstairs in the labour room but sent him to emergency ward. This happened multiple times. Thereafter, police arrived and took him and his brother Sunil Kumar to the local police station. He had stated to the ambulance to immediately take his pregnant wife to nearby Vikas hospital without any doctor seeing the urgency. His mother namely Vimla Devi accompanied his pregnant wife in the ambulance. He alongwith his brother remained at the PS. He received information after about one hour from one of his friend that one baby boy was born to his wife at Vikas Hospital. He stated that did not commit anything wrong as he was only getting his Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 12 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:49:06 +0530 pregnant wife to be treated properly, however, the present case was wrongly filed against him. DW1 further stated that there were CCTV cameras installed at the hospital and the same be checked. DW1 stated that as he was constantly asking for a doctor seeing the critical condition of his pregnant wife, the hospital administration i.e. doctor had filed the present case against him.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
16. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
17. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said offences.
18. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted for the said offences.
Digitally signed by AbhinavFIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 13 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:49:11 +0530 INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
19. Before embarking upon the appreciation of evidences, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of IPC for which the accused has faced trial:-
"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."
"323. - Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. It states that whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to one year, or a fine to one thousand rupees, or both.
"332. Voluntarily causing hurt to a public person while discharging his official duty.- It reads as under: "Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public ser ant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person 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".
20. The import of the above sections is to punish persons who create obstruction in the discharge of duties of public servants. While Section 186 IPC envisages merely voluntary obstruction, section 353 IPC lays down an additional condition that such obstruction must be caused by assaulting or using criminal force against the Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Page 14 of 32 Date:
FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:49:17 +0530 public servant. In fact, the distinction between these two provisions has been clearly borne out in Durgacharan Naik & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1966 SC 1775 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following words:-
"5. It is true that most of the allegations in this case upon which the charge under Section 353, Indian Penal Code is based are the same as those constituting the charge under Section. 186, Indian Penal Code but it cannot be ignored that Sections 186 and 353, Indian Penal Code relate to two distinct offences and while the offence under the latter section is a cognizable offence, the one under the former section is not so. The ingredients of the two offences are also distinct.
Section 186, Indian Penal Code is applicable to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the discharge of his public functions but under Section 353, Indian Penal Code the ingredient of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary. The quality of the two offences is also different. Section 186 occurs in Ch. X of the Indian Penal Code dealing with contempts of the lawful authority of public servants, while Section 353 occurs in Ch. XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body."
21. In the instant case, the Court is posed with following questions for determination to adjudge the veracity of prosecution case: -
(a)whether the complainant namely PW1 Dr. Mani Shankar Madhav was a public servant at the time of alleged commission of offences in question?
(b) whether the said person was acting in discharge of his public functions assigned to him?
(c) whether any obstruction or deterrence was caused to the said person in the discharge of his public functions by the act of accused?
(c.i) for the purpose of Section 186 IPC , whether the complaint was filed before this court u/S 195 Cr.P.C? Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 15 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:49:23 +0530 (c.ii) for the purpose of Section 353 IPC, whether the accused had assaulted or used any criminal force to the said person during the execution of his duties?
22. It is a paramount tenet of criminal law that every accused is presumed to be innocent and cannot be convicted unless the prosecution is able to discharge the initial onus rested upon it beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, the prosecution is under a bounden duty to prove all these points on the aforesaid standard to drive home the guilt of accused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE & FINDINGS.
23. The first set of allegations as per the case of prosecution against the accused persons relates to the commission of offence punishable under Sections 186/332/353/323/34 IPC whereas the second set of allegations against the accused persons is relating to commission of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Delhi Medicare Service Personnel and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2008.
24. Let us deal with the first set of allegations qua the accused persons qua the offence punishable under Section 186/332/353/323/34 IPC.
As regards the first point, whether the complainant was a public servant at the time of alleged commission of the offence, apart from the complaint of complainant Dr. Mani Shankar Madhav, the duty registers and attendance register dated 27.06.2018 were brought by PW5 Dr. Anil Yadav, Senior Medical Officer, RTRM Hospital, Delhi which is Ex.PW5/A. As Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 16 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:49:29 +0530 per the said duty roster, Dr. Mani Shankar Madhav, complainant PW1 was the Medical Officer from 01.07.2018 to 15.07.2018 whereas the present incident as of 11.07.2018. Thereby it is clear that complainant was serving as CMO on the date of alleged incident.
Further, all three accused persons have not disputed the fact that complainant is not a public servant who was serving as a Chief Medical Officer, RTRM Hospital on the date of incident. Thereby it is clear that complainant was the public servant as he was drawing remuneration/ pay from the government for the performance of his public duty at the hospital run by the Government of NCT of Delhi.
25. The second issue is whether the complaint as filed by complainant PW1 was filed before this court under Section 195 Cr. P. C. At the outset, the relevant portion of Section 195 of Cr. P.C. is reproduced herein-under for reference:
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance--
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Penal Code, 1860, (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;"
26. Now, it is a general condition to initiate prosecution u/s 186 IPC to see that the complaint is filed under Section 195 Cr. P. C. by the concerned public servant or his supervisor officer to whom he Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 17 of 32 Date:
Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:49:35 +0530 is subordinate. It is also not possible to bypass the requirement of Section 195 Cr. P. C. At this stage it is worthwhile to highlight the recent case of Santokh Singh Chawla v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4773, where in Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that,
33. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarized to the effect that there must be a complaint by the public servant whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of Section 195 Cr. P.C. are mandatory. Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. The Court cannot assume the cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction."
27. Also, as held in case of Gurucharan Singh Arora v. The State, (2002) 96 DLT 181, relevant observations of which read as under:
"5. ...In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to quote relevant portion of complaint. It reads:
--
"I Sh. G.L. Mehta, Inspector, SHO, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi in pursuance of Section'195 Cr. P.C. hereby give consent to prosecution (1) Gurcharan Singh Arora S/o Jagaj Nath Arora R/o G-29, Bali Nagar, Delhi, FIR No. 557/93, under Section186/332/353/506/34 IPC and 185 & 39/192 M.V. Act, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi & (2) Gaurav Arora S/o gurcharan Singh Arora r/o G-29, Gali Nagar, Delhi under Section 186/332/353/506/34 IPCvide case FIR No. 557/93, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi."
6. Section 2(d) of Cr. P.C. defines the complaint to mean any allegation made orally or in writing to a magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. It is true that no particular form is prescribed in which the complaint should be made and the substance of the complaint that is to be read. It is not necessary that it should categorise elements of the offence to Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 18 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:49:41 +0530 be charged. It is enough that the facts alleged should constitute an offence for which the accused is charged. It does not matter even if the complainant quotes wrong Sections. The complaint is meant to put the machinery of law in motion. Whether allegations were made with a view to take action against the accused would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
7. In this case, there was nothing in the complaint quoted above to indicate that the complaint was made to the Magistrate for taking action under Section 186 IPC. Mere consent of the SHO for prosecution of the accused cannot be construed as the complaint. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate that the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. Therefore, the charge under Section 186 IPC against the petitioner is not sustainable. It is needless to observe that in all such cases, the complaint should be filed by the concerned public servant with a prayer to take action against the accused and whenever such complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. is filed along with charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr. P.C., the Courts while taking cognizance, should also take note of such complaint, to avoid any technical objection at a later stage..."
28. In the instant case, complaint under Section 195 Cr. P. C. was made by Dr. Vivek Ranjan, DMS (M/RTRM Hospital) Ex.A4. The said document has not been disputed by the accused persons. Cognizance in the present case was taken when the charge-sheet along with complaint under Section 195 Cr. P. C. moved by the public servant before the court. Therefore, there is a compliance of provision of Section 195 Cr. P.C. as the complaint containing allegations against the accused persons along with relevant material was brought on record before the court at the time of filing the charge-sheet.
29. Proceeding to the third issue as to whether complainant was acting in discharge of his public function assigned to him at the time of incident. First and foremost, the version of the accused Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 19 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:49:47 +0530 persons which has come on record and accused persons have themselves admitted in their statement recorded u/S 313 Cr.P.C and t hrough t he t esti mony of DW1 that they got admitted the wife of accused Anil for delivery of child in RTRM Hospital at 11:00 pm on 10.07.2018 and when the pregnancy pain and cramps of wife of accused Anil started which lasted for entire day but despite the same delivery was not effected and thereafter at about 09:30 pm on 11.07.2018, the doctors of labour room informed the accused persons regarding the deterioration in the condition of wife of accused Anil and asked them to take her to some other hospital by arranging ambulance.
30. To prove that accused persons obstructed the treating doctor, thereby obstructing them in discharge of their public function, prosecution got examined complainant PW1 Dr. Mani Shankar Madhav, who stated that when the wife of accused Anil was referred to gynae department of Deen Dayal Hospital at around 10:00 pm on 11.07.2018, all the accused persons argued with the doctor at labour room asking Dr. Rohita to accompany the patient to DDU Hospital. PW1 further stated that all the accused persons thereafter argued with him at casualty ward but despite his efforts to make them calm down all of them became aggressive and started abusing him. PW1 further stated that he sent them all back to labour room stating that request be made to Dr. Rohita that if she suggests a JR is required for accompanying the referred patient to DDU Hospital then he shall provide the same. PW1 further stated that after some time he got a call from the labour room informing him that all the accused persons were misbehaving with the female doctor and making her video. Thereafter, he called the police for help and in the meantime one Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 20 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:49:52 +0530 ambulance came and the patient i.e. wife of accused Anil was shifted to the ambulance. PW1 further stated that thereafter, accused Vimla slapped him tightly and one of the accused persons i.e. Anil or Sunil (as PW1 could not distinguish between who was Anil or Sunil) threw stool hit him. PW1 further stated that staff member intervened along with one Ct. Narender who got multiple injuries over his hand.
31. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to peruse the testimony of Dr. Rohita, who was posted as doctor in the labour room who testified as PW2. Dr. Rohita stated in her testimony that in the year 2018 she was posted as Senior Resident (OBS and Gynae) at RTRM Hospital but she did not remember the date of incident. Thereafter, witness was allowed to refresh memory whereupon PW2 stated that the incident was of 11.07.2018 and she was examining one patient Jyoti who was medically fit for the purpose of admission. PW2 further stated that when she examined the patient at about 09:45 pm, she observed the fetal heart rate as 90-100 bpm and liquor was meconium stain. PW2 further stated that as no anaesthetist was available in the hospital at that time, accordingly, patient was directed to be referred to higher centre DDU hospital for emergency LSCS. PW2 further stated that attendants of Jyoti wanted her to accompany them to DDU Hospital but PW2 failed to identify any of the accused person to be the attendants accompanying the patient but further stated that the attendants started using abusive language and started making video of her whereafter she informed the said fact to the CMO.
Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 21 of 32 Ahlawat Date:
2024.11.12 15:49:58 +0530
32. PW2 is the main witness with whom the accused persons allegedly misbehaved, who brought the same fact to the knowledge of PW1 being the CMO of hospital. PW2 in her cross-examination stated that all the equipment were available in the hospital relating to delivery of a child except an anaesthetic. PW2 further admitted that generally nursery orderly used to accompany the referred patient whenever patients are referred to higher centre / another hospital and PW2 also stated that she did not know whether nursery orderly had accompanied the referred patient Jyoti or not.
Therefore, it is clear that both PW1 and PW2 were working as treating doctors at the hospital run by the Government of NCT of Delhi and were acting in discharge of their public function assigned to them at the time of incident.
33. Onto the fourth issue of whether the conduct of accused persons was such meaning to lead obstruction in the duties of concerned public servant i.e. PW1 Dr. Mani Shankar Madhav and that accused persons used criminal force and voluntarily caused harm to deter him from the discharge of his official duties.
Here, it needs to be mentioned that accused persons are relatives of the pregnant women who was admitted in the hospital where the complainant was the chief medical officer of the hospital in which the accused Anil got her wife admitted for the delivery of her child and thereby accused persons are the attendees of the said pregnant women. The role of the attendee is to assist the patient in the Hospital while getting treatment and their role varies from case to case and from time to time. Thereby, an attendee in a hospital who is urgently moving from Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 22 of 32 Ahlawat Date:
2024.11.12 15:50:04 +0530 one doctor to another, seeking assistance for a patient, cannot be reasonably construed as obstructing the doctors in the performance of their duties. This behaviour is typically driven by concern and desperation to obtain timely medical intervention, rather than any intention to hinder the doctors' work. The attendee's actions are aligned with the primary goal of ensuring the patient's well-being and should be seen as an expression of their need for immediate medical attention, rather than an impediment to the doctors' ability to provide care.
34. In the present case also, the accused persons being the family member of the admitted pregnant lady was driven from one doctor to other seeking a doctor to accompany the pregnant lady for shifting to other hospital. This act in itself was the duty of hospital and should not have been left upon the relatives of the patient. No wonder accused persons were not only concerned but also left in the state of desperation keeping in view the deteriorating state of the pregnant lady.
35. Furthermore, to prove that accused persons caused injury to the complainant in discharge of his official duty, complainant examined PW1, PW2 and PW3. As per complainant PW1 he was slapped by accused Vimla but there is no other witness who had deposed stating that PW1 was slapped by Vimla. PW2 who was working as senior Resident did not state anything regarding the slap being given to PW1. Furthermore, PW3 did not state anything regarding slap being given to PW1 and it was only when Ld. APP cross examined the PW3 that he stated so. Also, it is the version of complainant that all the accused came at the casualty ward and accused Vimla slapped him and other two Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 23 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.11.12 15:50:10 +0530 accused tried to hit him with a stool and PW3 who is one of the witness to be present at the spot who stated in his cross examination that there were CCTV cameras installed at the spot and thereby the footage of the said cameras becomes a vital piece of evidence which would have lend credence to the version of the complainant.
36. To prove the CCTV footage, prosecution examined PW8 Anil Kumar who deposed that he was working as CCTV Operator at RTRM Hospital and that he had provided CCTV footage in a CD to the IO Ex.P1 which was seized by the IO. PW8 further stated that in his cross-examination there were 68 CCTV cameras installed at RTRM Hospital but no CCTV installed at CMO room or in the OBGY ward. He further stated that the original DVR or CCTV cameras were seized. Upon playing the footage as contained in CD Ex.P1, it reveals that on 11.07.2018 at about 10:00 pm, footage of camera installed at ward no.1 was procured but no other footage apart from the said footage is working in the said CD Ex.P1. Upon careful perusal of the said footage, which highlights the presence of accused Anil along with his mother who are walking from one side to another. In some of the footage, it is also evident that they are walking swiftly showcasing their urgency. No incident of slapping, trying to hit the treating medical staff by use or throwing of stool is seen in the said footage. Here, it is pertinent to mention that as already stated by PW8 that there are no CCTV installed at the CMO room and OBGY ward thereby the incident as per the version of complainant is not present at the said CCTV cameras. One point which needs to be highlight upon pursuing the CCTV footage is Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 24 of 32 Date:
Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:50:14 +0530 that accused persons are clearly seen who were walking from one side to the other and evidently in the state of urgency.
37. At this stage, it is relevant to mention the judgment as passed by the bench of Justices Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi of the Supreme Court of India while hearing the case ofTomaso Bruno & Anr vs State Of U.P (2015), wherein it stated that, "CCTV footage was to be considered as the best piece of evidence in order to prove the presence of the accused at the crime scene and it was for the prosecution to produce such evidence. In cases of failure, serious doubts about the case of the prosecution could be welcomed. The arguments that were advanced by the prosecution, in this case, was that the onus to prove that the accused was not at the crime scene was on the accused in accordance with Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which therefore placed the burden of proving a fact within the knowledge of a person upon such person. Duly acknowledging the same, the Apex Court held that in order to invoke Section 106 of the Act of 1872 against the accused to prove his alibi, the prosecution had to establish the presence of the accused first and since the witnesses themselves had made a reference to the CCTV footage in this present case, a failure to produce the same did raise serious doubts about the prosecution's case."
38. As per the version of complainant, the incident happened in the casualty ward and when complaint was trying to pacify the accused Vimla she slapped him. There is no other witness to corroborate the version of complainant. Needless to mention that casualty ward is frequented by many persons as stated by the accused in his defence evidence as he was constantly asking the doctor present there about critical condition of his wife, the hospital administration had filed the present case against him. No such independent private person was joined in the investigation nor cited as a witness who could have corroborated the version of the complainant. Seeing from the prospective that no CCTV camera corroborates the version of complainant nor PW2 and Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 25 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:50:19 +0530 PW3 have stated anything regarding slap being given to PW1 thereby the version of the PW1 does not inspire confidence.
39. Furthermore, as neither PW1 and PW2, being the treating doctors have stated anything as to who ultimately accompanied pregnant lady when she was shifted to the other hospital by ambulance which shows hospital administration was completely oblivious but also shows the callous attitude of the hospital administration towards the patients and their well-being. No wonder the attendees of the patients become aggressive and concerned in such situations. The behaviour/ conduct of the attendants of the pregnant lady in the present case is to be seen keeping in view the overall circumstances.
40. Further, Court is conscious of the settled law on the point of injured eye witness which can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. In the present case, the fact that complainant is a doctor and the circumstances under which he allegedly was assaulted in the hospital is under a cloud of doubt, therefore, it becomes all the more important to scrutinize the testimony of complainant. As already held, there is no direct witness or evidence to show that accused persons caused harm or caused injury to the complainant except the version of the complainant himself which is also not corroborated Digitally signed Page 26 of 32 by Abhinav FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.11.12 15:50:25 +0530 by any CCTV footage or any public person despite being a public hospital. As discussed above, absence of other witnesses at the spot of incident to corroborate the version of the complainant raises doubt, therefore, in the absence of corroborative evidence, the act of injuries being given by accused persons to complainant is not established beyond doubt.
41. Additionally, it is the defence of the accused persons that as they were insisting from the hospital staff and authorities to depute someone to accompany the wife of accused Anil in the ambulance for the purpose of shifting to other hospital, the hospital staff had falsely implicated them in the present case as accused persons had asked them to perform their duty and to save themselves, complainant filed a false complaint against the accused persons.
Also, the other injured in the present case who is a police officer who was apparently present at the spot in some other case who deposed as PW3 is the not the complainant and he apparently had only intervened in the alleged scuffle between the accused persons and complainant PW1 and as such there are no allegations from him against the accused persons. Although PW3 stated that he saw accused Vimla slapping PW1 Dr. Mani Shanker Madhav however, even the presence of PW3 being a police officer in some other case in the hospital is not established conclusively. There is no DD entry on record proving that PW3 was present in the hospital at the time of the alleged incident not PW3 is visible in any of the footage of the CCTV cameras.
42. Upon considering the testimony of the prosecution witness alongwith the common defence of accused person, it is quite Digitally signed by Abhinav Page 27 of 32 Abhinav Date: Ahlawat FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:50:31 +0530 evident that upon deterioration of the condition of the wife of accused Anil, accused persons being the attendants of the admitted person were left in a state of desperation due to non- providing of adequate facility by the hospital administration whereby accused persons were running from one doctor to another, however, the said fact in itself cannot be termed as causing obstruction in the discharge of the official functions of the treating doctor being public servant. Thereby, considering the overall circumstances of the incident and the background in which the same happened, considerable doubt has arisen over the prosecution case and accordingly, accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt. Prosecution case, even if taken to be unrebutted, the prosecution story falls short of satisfying the elements of causing hurt, assault or criminal force as per section 186/332/323/353/34 IPC and thereby the accused persons are acquitted of the said offences.
43. The second set of allegations against the accused persons is that 11.07.2018 at about 10:15 pm at RTRM Hospital, Delhi, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed the act of violence against the Medicare personals of the RTRM Hospital and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Delhi Medicare Service Personnel and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2008 hereinafter called as DMSP and MSI Act, 2008. The provisions of the said Act are as under:
Section 3 - Prohibition of Violence. - Any act of violence against service personnel or damage to property in a medicare service institution is hereby prohibited.
Section 4 - Penalty. - Any offender who commits any act in contravention of section 3, shall be punished with imprisonment for Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 28 of 32 Ahlawat Date:
2024.11.12 15:50:36 +0530 a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
44. It is the submission of ld. Counsel for accused that complaint under section 6 of the act was not made and accordingly, proceedings against the accused persons under the DMSP and MSI Act, 2008 was not proper. Before, dealing the contention of the counsel for defence, it is appropriate here to peruse the DMSP and MSI Act, 2008. The objective of the above said act is to prohibit violence against medicare service personal and damage to property in medicare service institutions in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. As per section 6 of the said Act, the Head of the medicare service institution where the offence has been committed, or his authorized representative shall have the power to make a complaint under this Act with the law enforcing agency.
45. In the instant case, perusal of the case file reveals that the complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC was made by Dr. Vivek Ranjan, DMS (M/RTRM Hospital) which is Ex.A4 which also mentions the fact that the head of institution had prayed for prosecution of the accused persons under the provision of DMSP, MSI Act. As per section 6 of the DMSP, MSI Act, the complaint under the act is to be made by the head of the institution where the alleged offence was committed. In the present case, the incident was reported to the police vide DD no.33A dated 11.07.2018 regarding a quarrel whereafter PW7 ASI Leela Ram went to the Hospital and met PW1 Dr. Madhav who gave his complaint Ex.
PW7/A on which tehrir was prepared. As discussed above PW1 was the CMO/ the Medical Officer as per the duty registers and attendance register dated 27.06.2018 Ex.PW5/A. As per the said Digitally signed Page 29 of 32 by Abhinav FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:50:41 +0530 duty roster, Dr. Mani Shankar Madhav, complainant PW1 was the Medical Officer from 01.07.2018 to 15.07.2018 whereas the present incident as of 11.07.2018. Thereby it is clear that complainant was serving as CMO on the date of alleged incident and it is also clear that he was not the head of the institution as per section 6 of the as DMSP and MSI Act, 2008. However, as per section 6 of the DMSP and MSI Act, 2008, the authority to file the complaint where offence has been committed is provided to head of the institution or his authorized representative. Therefore, PW1 who filed his complaint on the date of incident was acting as the Chief Medical Officer and thereby he cannot be stated to be not having the authority to file complaint if any act of violence happened in the medicare facility. Also, Dr. Vivek Ranjan, DMS (M/RTRM Hospital) being the head of the institution had mentioned the factum of prosecution of the accused persons under the Act of DMSP, MSI Act. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission of the counsel for accused that the proceedings against the accused persons under the DMSP and MSI Act, 2008 was not proper.
46. Furthermore, as discussed above, the act of the accused person was not established to have been such to be causing obstruction in the discharge of the function of the treating doctors and neither the act of accused Vimla slapping the doctor was established beyond reasonable doubt. Section 2 (f) of the Act defines "violence" as which means activities of causing any harm or injury or endangering life, or intimidation, obstruction or hindrance to any medicare service personnel in discharge of duty in the medicare service institution or damage to property in such institution.Digitally signed by Abhinav
FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 30 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.11.12 15:50:47 +0530
47. The main gist of the act of violence being the act of causing harm or injury or intimidating, obstructing to any medicare service personal in discharge of their duty. In the present case, as discussed above the actions of accused persons are not established to be of such kind which could be termed as causing obstruction in the discharge of duty of the medicare personals. Factum of violence being committed by the accused persons at the medicare facility is not established. The charge against the accused persons under Sections 3 and 4 of the Delhi Medicare Service Personnel and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2008 are not made out.
CONCLUSION
48. In criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused. In view of discussion made above, it becomes clear that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the mens rea i.e., the accused persons voluntarily obstructed the treating doctors being public servant in discharge of their public functions by using violence against them. There is considerable doubt on the prosecution version and the prosecution has failed to establish the necessary mens rea of the offences with which the accused persons have been charged and accordingly, the benefit of doubt ought to be given to accused persons.
Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 31 of 32 Ahlawat Date:
2024.11.12 15:50:53 +0530
49. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge of Section 186/323/332/353/34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Delhi Medicare Service Personnel and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2008.
The inescapable conclusion is that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Resultantly, accused Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Hawa Singh, Sunil Kumar s/o Hawa Singh and Smt. Bimla W/o Hawa Singh are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 186/323/324/332/353/34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Delhi Medicare Service Personnel and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2008 Announced in the open court Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat on 12.11.2024 in the presence Ahlawat Date:
2024.11.12 of the accused.
15:51:02 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/12.11.2024 Note: - This judgment contains 32 pages and each page has been signed by me. Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.11.12 15:51:09 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/12.11.2024 FIR No. 110/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 32 of 32