Delhi District Court
State vs Shahrukh on 20 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: MS. SAYESHA CHADHA, DJS
FIR No. 32/2017
PS : Kotwali
U/s 186/353/332 IPC & 3/181
and 119/117 MV Act
State vs. Shahrukh
Date of Institution of case: 22.03.2018
Date when Judgment reserved: 14.03.2026
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 20.04.2026
JUDGMENT
A. Case No. : 4560/2018
B. Date of Institution of Case : 22.03.2018
C. Date of Commission of Offence : 09.03.2017
D. Name of the complainant : Sh. Inspector Khushal
Singh
E. Name of the Accused : Shahrukh S/o Sh. Shabir Ali
& his parentage and residence R/o H.No.337/20, Gali
No.20, near Idgah Gate, 33
Feet Road, New Mustafabad,
Delhi.
F. Offences complained of : U/s 186/353/332 IPC &
3/181 and 119/177 MV Act
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final order : Conviction
I. Date of such order : 20.04.2026
State Vs. Shahrukh
FIR No. 32/2017
PS Kotwali
1/25
Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case:
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 09.03.2017 at about 10:15 am near Shanti Van Chowk, on the road towards Jama Masjid, Nishad Raj Marg, Delhi, accused had voluntarily obstructed complainant Inspector Kushal Singh (public servant) in discharge of his public function and accused used criminal force against complainant in execution of his public function in order to prevent him from executing his lawful duties. Accused also voluntarily caused hurt to the Inspector Khushal Singh, a public servant while discharging his official duties as public servants. On the aforesaid date, time and place, accused was driving motorcycle bearing registration no. DL5S BH 3724 without any "L" sign which was in contravention of learning license issued to accused and accused disobeyed the traffic rules and traffic signs/signals and thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 186/353/332 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (here inafter called as IPC) & 3/181 and 119/117 Motor Vehicle Act.
2. Upon conclusion of investigation, a final report was filed before the court against the accused. Cognizance of offence punishable u/s 186/353/332 IPC & 3/181 and 119/117 MV Act was taken. Upon summoning, the accused appeared and copy of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C). Thereafter, charge for offence punishable u/s 186/353/332 IPC & 3/181 and 119/117 MV Act was framed against the accused State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 2/25 to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.
3. Thereafter, the prosecution was given the opportunity to substantiate the allegations against the accused. The prosecution examined 7 (seven) witnesses in support of its case:
4. PW-1 Ct. Tanveer has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 09.03.2017, he was on duty alongwith TI/Insp. Khushal Singh and ASI Naresh Pawar. They were standing near Shanti Van Chowk Red Light on the road towards Jama Masjid. They were checking vehicles on Nishad Raj Marg. Accused came on a bike make Passion of Red and Black colour having registration no. DL5S BN 3724. Again said, DL5S BH 3724. They had indicated towards the accused to stop the bike but instead of stopping the bike, he continued riding in zigzag manner and finally hit his bike to TI/Insp. Khushal Singh. Accused fell alongwith his bike and TI/Insp. Khushal Singh also fell down. Accused was apprehended and 100 number call was made by Insp. Khushal Singh. Both accused and Insp. Khushal Singh were taken to hospital and the bike was parked on the side of the road. He has correctly identified the photographs of the bike Ex. P1. IO recorded his statement on the next day. Accused had not signed any document during investigation. Despite indication, accused did not obey the traffic rules. He has correctly identified the accused.
5. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-1 stated that the incident took place at about 10:15 am. In total, they were four police officials but he did not State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 3/25 remember the name of one police official now apart from him, TI/Insp. Khushal Singh and ASI Naresh Pawar. He was assigned duty to follow the instructions of TI. At that time, TI had instructed him to stop and even who would have violated the traffic rules at Red Light. He denied that his duty at that time was to manage the traffic and not to prevent the violation of traffic rules. He voluntarily stated that he was assisting in challan duty at that time. All four police officials including him were performing duty on the single point at red light. They were standing at a distance of 40 to 50 metres from red light chowk. He denied that he was not standing alongwith four police officials instead performing his duty separately. No barricades were placed at that time. He had seen accused violating red light immediately when he jumped red light while he was standing at a distance of 40 to 50 metre from the accused. He cannot tell exactly the location of each police official. He cannot say my location in relevance to TI/Insp. Khushal Singh. They were standing on the right side of the road and the divider was on our left side. Firstly, the indication was given from the right side of the road and to stop the accused we came in the middle of the road almost. Accused firstly ridden the bike towards the right side and then in zigzag he turned towards the divider. By that time, TI/Insp. Khushal Singh reached near the divider to stop him and then he was hit by the accused near the divider. The bike fell down after the strike with TI. He cannot say which body part of TI was hit by the bike. He voluntarily stated that he sustained injuries in both the hands. Both of them fell on the road. He cannot say on State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 4/25 which side the bike fell. He denied that he was deposing falsely that accused jumped red light. He denied that the hit was not deliberate and a mere accident or that the hit took place due to the sudden and wrong motion of TI and not due to deliberate action of accused OR that he was not present at the spot OR that he was deposing falsely at the instance of TI/Insp. Khushal Singh. He denied that the accused was not moving in zigzag manner. Accused might have stood up himself after incident. Again said, they ran towards both of them and helped them in standing up from road. The bike fell just near the TI. The bike was lifted with the aid of public persons. Public persons were gathered after the alleged incident. He was not aware whether IO has asked any public persons to join the investigation. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW-2 Retired SI Naresh has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 09.03.2017, he went to Shantivan Chowk, Red Light alongwith Ct. Tanveer vide DD No. 13 dated 09.03.2017 Mark X. During our duty, TI / Inspector Khushal Singh also came to the spot. They were checking vehicles on Nishad Raj Marg and was standing near Shantivan Chowk Red Light on the road towards Jama Masjid coming from Geeta Colony. While they were checking vehicles, at about 10.15 am, accused came on motorcycle / bike make Passion of Red and black colour bearing registration no. DL-5SBH-3724 from Geeta Colony Side and jumped the red light Shantivan Chowk. Thereafter, they signalled / indicated accused to stop the offending motorcycle but instead of stopping the above State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 5/25 said bike, he accelerated his motorcycle, while driving the same in zig zag manner and finally hit his bike to Inspector Khushal Singh. Accused alongwith his motorcycle and Inspector Khushal Singh fell down on the road. Accused was apprehended and Inspector Khushal Singh made a call at 100 number. After some time, PCR van namely sugar 34 arrived at the spot and took both accused and Inspector Khushal Singh to the hospital for their medical treatment. The motorcycle was parked by the public persons at the side of road. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC on the next day i.e., 10.03.2017 at Shantivan Chowk where he was performing his duty. He has correctly identified accused. He has also correctly identified four photographs of the offending motorcycle Ex.P1 on which accused was driving on the date of incident.
7. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-2 stated that he was standing at a distance of 10 meters from the red light shantivan chowk alongwith TI Inspector Khushal Singh and Ct. Tanveer. He noticed the accused after he jumped the red light. Again said, he noticed the accused while he was coming from Geeta colony side and jumped the red light in his presence. All of them signaled the accused to stop the motorcycle by raising their hands. The accused was driving the motorcycle at a speed not less than 40 kmph. Counsel for accused wanted to confront the witness with the site plan which has not been exhibited yet. He alongwith Ct. Tanvir and Traffic Inspector Khushal Singh State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 6/25 signaled the accused to stop when the accused jumped the red light. The accused was at a distance of 10-15 meters when they signaled the accused to stop. The accused was driving the motorcycle in middle of the road and they tried to stop him in the middle of the road. They all three came in middle of the road to stop the accused. He denied that he came in front of the accused all of a sudden and he further denied that due to their sudden coming before the accused, he fell down. He voluntarily stated that the accused was trying to flee from the spot to save himself from challan. Witness confronted with his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C dated 10.03.2017 Ex. PW2/X1 bears his signature at point A (it was not mentioned that the accused was trying to flee away from the spot to save himself from challan). It was mentioned in his statement that the accused was trying to flee away from the spot by accelerating the motorcycle. He denied that Inspector Khushal Singh fell down to save himself from the running motorcycle. He denied that the motorcycle did not hit Inspector Khushal Singh. He did not know whether the accused sustained any injuries due to felling down from the motorcycle. Inspector Khushal Singh made the call at 100 number. The PCR van took Inspector Khushal Singh and the accused to the hospital. After the alleged accident, he did not have any word with the accused. No conversation took place between Inspector Khushal Singh, Ct. Tanvir and the accused after the accident. He denied that the alleged incident was just an accident and there was no fault of the accused.
State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 7/25
8. PW-3 ACP Kushal Singh has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on on 09.03.2017, he was posted as traffic Inspector at traffic circle Kotwali. On that day vide DD No. 14 dt. 09.03.17, he went to Kotwali circle area for staff checking at about 9:00 am. The above said DD entry Ex.Mark X1. On that day, he was present on duty alongwith ASI Naresh Pawar and Ct. Tanveer Singh at Nishadraj Marg near Shanti van Chowk red light on the road towards Jama Masjid and were checking vehicles. On that day at about 10:15 am one motorcyclist came on one red and black color motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-5SBH-3724 make PASSION from Geeta Colony side. The above said motor cyclist jumped the Shanti Van Chowk red light and violated the traffic signals/rules and thereby, they signaled/ indicated the motorcyclist/accused to stop the bike. But instead of stopping the bike, he continued riding the same in zig zag manner and increased his speed and finally hit him with his bike. Due to the hit, he alongwith the accused/motorcyclist fell down on the road and sustained injuries. His co-staff apprehended accused and picked him up. On inquiry, the name of the accused was revealed as Shahrukh s/o Sabir Ali. He has correctly identified the accused. He made the call at 100 number and after sometime PCR van sugar34 reached the spot and took him and the accused to the trauma center, civil lines for medical treatment. After the treatment, he came back to his office and thereafter in the evening at about 4:00 pm, he went to PP Red Fort and his statement was recorded by the IO Ex.PW-3/A bearing his signature at point A and prepared the tehrir State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 8/25 and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, he alongwith IO went to the spot where the IO prepared the site plan at his instance Ex.PW-3/B bearing his signature at point A. In the meantime, Ct. Veer Singh alongwith copy of FIR and original Tehrir/rukka came back at the spot and handed over the same to the IO. IO also searched for the public witness but no public witness was found at the spot. He alongwith IO and Ct. Veer Singh came back at PP Red Fort. When he came back at PP Red Fort he saw accused was already present at the PP Red Fort and was standing alongwith his motorcycle and he correctly identified accused and his motorcycle and mentioned the same to the IO. Thereafter, IO made a enquiry from accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW-3/C bearing his signature at point A and prepared the age memo Ex. PW-3/D bearing his signature at point A. IO also prepared the personal search memo of the accused Ex. PW-3/E bearing his signature at point A. IO seized the offending motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-5SBH-3724 vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/F bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, IO recorded his supplementary statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. and he was discharged. He has correctly identified the photographs of offending motorcycle Ex.P1 which the accused was driving on the date of incident.
9. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-3 stated that on 09.03.2017, he was alongwith two staff persons at Nishad Raj Marg near Shantivan Chowk, Delhi. He alongwith the abovesaid staff standing on the road which was going State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 9/25 from Shantivan Chowk towards Subhash Marg. They were standing at the distance of 15-20 meters from the red light. He was standing on the side of the road near footpath. He saw the offending motorcyclist at the red light. All of them had signaled the motorcyclist to stop the motorcycle. On that day, they were on regulation and prosecution duty (to regulate traffic and to prosecute the traffic violators). They stopped the accused Shahrukh where they were standing. He cannot say due to passage of time, the exact place on road where they stopped the accused Shahrukh. They moved 2-3 steps to stop the accused. He denied that they suddenly came in front of the accused motorcyclists due to which he fell down on the road. He denied that the abovesaid motorcyclist had not hit him with the motorcycle and he fell down due to dis- balance. He got injury on his hand due to the hit from the motorcycle. He denied that he did not sustained any injuries due to the hit from the abovesaid motorcycle. He admitted that the accused fell down on the road. He voluntarily stated that he also fell down on the road after being hit by the motorcycle driven by the accused. He also admitted that they also send challans to the traffic violators at their addresses. He admitted that the accused Shahrukh had not entered into arguments with him and his co-staff. He denied that the accused Shahrukh had not obstructed them in the discharge of their public duties. He denied that the motorcycle of the accused fell down near the divider and at that time, he was standing on the side of the road near footpath. He denied that he was deposing falsely in the present case.
State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 10/25
10. PW-4 Irshad has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., red and black color motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-5SBH-3724 make PASSION. On 22.03.2017, he went of PP Red Fort, Delhi and IO served him notice u/s 133 MV Act Ex. PW-4/A bearing his signature at point A and point B. He told the IO that accused was his friend and he was driving his motorcycle on 09.03.2017 at about 10:15 am. He got released the above said motorcycle on Superdari vide Superdarinama dated 24.03.2017 Ex.PW-4/B bearing his signature at point A on each page. The panchnama of the above said motorcycle Ex. PW-4/C bearing his signature at point A. The photocopy of the insurance and the RC of the offending motorcycle Mark PW-4/C1 and PW-4/C2 bearing his signatures at point A. He has correctly identified accused. He has correctly identified the photographs of the offending vehicle i.e. red and black color motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-5SBH-3724 make PASSION Ex. P-1.
11. PW-5 HC Dinesh Kumar has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 09.03.2017, after receiving information at about 10.40 AM from PS Kotwali regarding accident and injured, he recorded the abovesaid information vide DD No. 15 PP, Red fort dated 09.03.2017 and informed about the same to ASI Sandeep and Ct. Veer Singh to carry out investigation regarding the same. The abovesaid DD entry Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point A.
12. PW-6 ASI Sanjeev Kumar has deposed in his examination-in-
State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 11/25 chief that on 09.03.2017, after receiving DD No. 15PP Red Fort, he alongwith Ct. Veer Singh went to the spot near Shanti Van Chowk, on the road towards Jama masjid, Nishad Raj Marg, Delhi. On reaching there, he saw the motorcycle make HERO HONDA PASSION black and red color at the spot. He got to know that the injured persons namely Inspector Joginder Singh again said Insp. Kushal Singh and the motorcyclist/accused Shahrukh had been taken to the trauma center hospital for medical treatment through PCR. He left the custody of the spot and the motorcycle to Ct. Veer Singh and left for Trauma Center Hospital. Thereafter, he collected the MLC of both the injured persons and both the injured persons were already discharged from the hospital when he reached there. He came back at the spot and searched for the public/eye witness but no public witness could be traced. Thereafter, the above said motorcycle was brought to PP Red Fort. Thereafter, the complainant/victim namely Insp. Kushal Singh came at PP Red Fort and narrated him the whole incident. He recorded the statement of Insp. Kushal Singh Ex. PW-3/A and prepared Tehrir/rukka Ex.PW-6/A bearing his signature at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Veer Singh at about 5:00 pm for registration of FIR. He alongwith complainant came at the spot and he prepared the site plan of the spot at the instance of complainant Ex.PW-3/B bearing his signature at point B. In the meantime, Ct. Veer Singh came at the spot alongwith the copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him. He inserted the FIR number on the site plan. He alongwith complainant and Ct. Veer State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 12/25 Singh came back at PP Red Fort and he seized the above said motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex.PW-3/F bearing his signature at point B. In the meantime, accused Shahrukh was also found standing near the motorcycle and complainant Inspector Kushal Singh correctly identified the accused Shahrukh as the one who had caused him injury during his duty. He interrogated the accused whose name on enquiry was revealed as shahrukh. Thereafter, he arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-3/C bearing his signature at point B. He prepared the age memo of the accused Ex.PW-3/D bearing his signature at point B and carried out his personal search vide memo Ex.PW-3/E bearing his signature at point B. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW-6/B bearing his signature at point A. Accused was put behind the bars in the lockup of the PS and the case property was deposited in the malkhana. He recorded the statement of witnesses and they were discharged. Accused was produced before the concerned court on the next day and was sent to JC. During investigation, he served notice u/s 133 MV Act upon the owner of the motorcycle namely Irshad Ex.PW-4/A bearing his signature at point B. The owner Irshad replied in his own handwriting from point X to X1 on the said notice that on 09.03.2017, accused was driving the above said offending motorcycle bearing no.______3724. He collected the photocopy of the duty roster and DD entries of the concerned staff who were present at the spot on the said day. The above said duty roster photocopy running into 5 pages Ex. PW-6/C. The said DD entries of the departure of the State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 13/25 concerned staff Mark X and Mark X1. He recorded the statements of the concerned duty staff who were present at the spot at the time of incident on 09.03.2017. He collected the opinion on the MLC of Insp. Kushal Singh on which the doctor has opined the nature of injury as simple. He obtained the sanction u/s 195 CrPC from the concerned authority Ex.A-5. He also collected the photocopy of the learning license of the accused Mark X2. The offending motorcycle was released on Superdari as per the directions of concerned court vide superdari nama Ex.PW-4/B. The punchnama of the same Ex.PW-4/C bearing his signature at point B. On completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet before the concerned court. He has correctly identified accused. He has correctly identified 4 photographs of the offending motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-5SBH-3724 Ex.P1.
13. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-6 stated that he reached at the spot at around 10:30 am on 09.03.2017. He denied that the place is very crowded rather the traffic was normal. He denied that any tyre shops are located across the road off the alleged incident. He did not remember if any tyre puncture shops were located near the alleged place of incident. He did not stop any person on the road to join him as public witness. He denied that he did not try to include the pujari of the mandir located near the alleged place of incident as a public witness. He voluntarily stated that no pujari was present in the mandir at the time, he tried to obtain the testimony of public State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 14/25 witness. He searched for the pujari twice at the mandir. The site plan has been prepared upon the instructions of the complainant. He cannot say which certainty as to how many police officials were deputed at the alleged scene of crime. Witness was confronted with the duty roster Ex.PW6/C. The witness submits that three police officers namely ASI Naresh Kumar, Ct. Sandeep and Ct. Rajender were deputed near Shanti Van Choraha. The deputed officers were checking near the Shanti Van Choraha towards the Jama Masjid road. As per the duty roster the three officers were deputed at the Shanti Van Choraha. He did not seen any of the officers checking at Choraha. He voluntarily stated taht the complainant told in his statement that those officers were checking near the choraha. He admitted to say that those officers were present there as traffic police officers. He cannot say whether the duty of the officers was assigned to a particular spot or not. He denied that the duty of the officers was at specified spot. He reached at the hospital after 30 minutes from reaching at the spot. He reached at the spot within 5 minutes of receiving the call. He did not remember the exact time of reaching at the spot. He alongwith Ct. Veer Singh took the offended motorcycle from the spot to chowki Lal Qila. It was seized and subsequently deposited in the malkhana. He did not remember the exact time of events. As far as he remember accused Shahrukh was arrested around 7:00 pm in the evening at Chowki Lal Qila since the accused had come for his bike at the chowki Lal Qila. He voluntarily stated that he was told by the complainant about the accused presence. He denied that the accused has come to State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 15/25 chowki to register a complaint and he was subsequently arrested. He admitted that the accused Shahrukh also received injury. He denied that he had not recorded properly the disclosure statement of the accused as stated by him. He denied that he had recorded the disclosure statement at the instance of the complainant. He denied that he had not prepared the correct site plan. He denied that he had not carried out investigation in fair manner. He denied that he had never visited the spot. He denied that all the investigation was done at the PS. He denied that all the formal witness were planted in the present case and he deliberately had not joined public witness. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
14. PW-7 HC Veer Singh has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 09.03.2017, he alongwith IO went to Shantivan chowk where one bike was found. He has correctly identified accused. He can identify the case property if shown to him. The case property exhibited as already Ex.P-1 in the testimony of PW-1.
15. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. APP for the State, PW-7 admitted that IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C dt. 09.03.2017 Mark A. Witness shown and read over his statement u/s 161 CrPC Mark A from point A to A1, the content of the same has been admitted by the witness. He admitted that IO recorded the disclosure of accused vide disclosure memo Ex.PW-6/B and witness admitted his signature at point B. Witness shown and read over the content of disclosure memo ExPW-6/B from point X to X1, the content of the same has been admitted by the witness. He State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 16/25 admitted that IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW-3/C and witness has admitted his signature at point C. Witness shown and read over the content of arrest memo ExPW-3/C from point X to X1, the content of the same has been admitted by the witness. He admitted that IO prepared the age memo Ex.PW-3/D and witness admitted his signature at point B. witness shown and read over the content of age memo Ex PW-3/D from point X to X1, the content of the same has been admitted by the witness. He admitted that IO prepared the personal search memo Ex.PW-3/E and witness admitted his signature at point C. Witness shown and read over the content of personal search memo Ex PW-3/E from point X to X1, the content of the same has been admitted by the witness. He admitted that IO seized the motorcycle no. DL-5SBH-3724 was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW-3/F and witness admitted his signature at point C. Witness shown and read over the content of seizure memo ExPW-3/F from point X to X1, the content of the same has been admitted by the witness.
16. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-7 admitted that he was carrying mobile phone with audio videography feature at the time of investigation proceedings as well as recovery proceedings, however, no audio videography was done by him of the investigation proceedings as well as recovery proceedings. He left with tehrir for lodging of FIR at around 5:00 pm and returned back to the spot at about 5:20 pm and handed over the copy of FIR alongwith original tehrir to IO. He State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 17/25 went to PS on his personal motorcycle for lodging of FIR. He admitted that the spot of incident was frequented by public persons who were asked to join the investigation, however, all left citing their personal reasons. Due to paucity of time no written notice could be served upon said public persons neither their names could be taken. He denied that he signed on the blank papers which were later converted by IO into the documents of the present case. He denied that he never participated in the proceedings of the present case. He denied that the entire case proceedings were done while sitting in the PS. He denied that he was planted witness at the instance of IO. He denied that the present case was not investigated in a fair and proper manner. He denied that he was deposing faslely.
17. Vide separate statement of the accused recorded u/s 294 CrPC, the accused admitted FIR as Ex. A1, Endorsement on Rukka as Ex. A2, Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex. A3, Mechanical Inspection Report of vehicle bearing no. DL5S BH 3724 as Ex. A4, Sanction u/s 195 Cr.P.C as Ex. A5, MLC No. 4049/17 Ex.A6 and MLC NO. 4050/17 Ex.A-7 without admitting the contents of the same.
18. The prosecution evidence was closed on 04.03.2025 and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 read with section 281 of CrPC on 04.07.2025, wherein he pleaded his innocence and stated to have been falsely implicated. The accused has not opted to lead defence evidence. Final arguments were heard. I have cogitated over the submissions made by ld. APP for State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 18/25 the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused person.
DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREON:
19. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
20. In order to ensure convenient appraisal of evidence, the following points of determination have been framed against the accused.
1.Whether the accused Shahrukh on 9th of March 2017 at about 10:15 AM near Shantivan Chowk on the road towards Jama Masjid voluntarily obstructed, the complainant Inspector Kushal Singh in the discharge of his public functions, use criminal force against him to prevent him from the execution of his public functions and voluntarily caused hurt to Inspector Kushal Singh while he was discharging his official duties.
2.Whether on the aforesaid day, time and place, the accused was driving the motorcycle bearing registration number DL5SBH3724 without any L sign, which was in contravention of the learning license issued to him thereby committing an offence under section 3/181 of the MV Act.
3.Whether the accused on the aforesaid day, time and place disobeyed the traffic rules by driving despite red light signal thereby committing an offence under section 119/177 of the MV State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 19/25 Act.
21. The burden to prove these allegations rests upon the prosecution, and for the sake of convenience, all the points of determination are being adjudicated together.
22. The prosecution examined PW1 Constable Tanveer Singh, who deposed that on the relevant date, while posted at Traffic Circle Kotwali, he along with Inspector Kushal Singh and ASI Naresh Pawar was present at Shantivan Chowk for vehicle checking. He categorically stated that the accused came riding a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL5SBN3724, violated the red light signal, and despite being signalled to stop, continued driving in a zig-zag manner and ultimately struck Inspector Kushal Singh, causing both to fall. The accused was apprehended at the spot and information was conveyed to the control room. The witness correctly identified the accused as well as the case property and remained materially unrebutted in cross-examination. His testimony clearly establishes not only the violation of traffic rules but also the deliberate act of not complying with lawful directions issued by a public servant.
23. PW2 Retired SI Naresh Pawar has corroborated the testimony of PW1 in material particulars. He also stated that the accused jumped the red light and, instead of stopping, accelerated his motorcycle and drove in a zig-zag manner, ultimately hitting Inspector Kushal Singh. The consistency between PW1 and PW2 State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 20/25 lends strong corroboration to the prosecution case, and both witnesses have remained unshaken in cross-examination.
24. PW3 Inspector Kushal Singh, the injured witness, deposed that he was present at the spot along with PW1 and PW2 when the accused violated the red light and, despite being signalled to stop, accelerated and hit him, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. He proved the site plan Ex. PW3/B and identified the accused in court. In his cross-examination, he specifically denied the defence suggestion that the police officials had suddenly or abruptly come in front of the accused, thereby causing the accident. The testimony of this witness carries heightened evidentiary value, being that of an injured witness, and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Naresh, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law and is generally considered reliable unless strong reasons exist for its rejection.
25. The prosecution further examined PW4 Irshad, the registered owner of the motorcycle, who, in response to notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, stated that the accused was driving the motorcycle on the day of the incident.
26. PW5 HC Dinesh proved the receipt of DD entry at about 10:40 AM, which corroborates the timing of the incident. PW6 ASI Sanjeev Kumar, the Investigating Officer, deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him, including reaching the spot, visiting the hospital, preparation of rukka, site plan, arrest of the State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 21/25 accused, and collection of duty roster and sanction under Section 195 CrPC.
27. PW7 HC Veer Singh also supported the prosecution case and explained that, though public persons were present at the spot, they declined to join the investigation.
28. The medical evidence in the form of MLC of Inspector Kushal Singh establishes that he sustained simple injuries, and the same was recorded within an hour of the incident, thereby lending assurance to the ocular version of events. Further, the duty roster Ex. PW6/C clearly establishes that Inspector Kushal Singh was on official duty at the relevant time, thereby satisfying a foundational requirement for offences under Sections 186, 353 and 332 IPC.
29. At this stage, it is necessary to deal with the arguments raised by the learned defence counsel. The first contention raised is that the police officials, including Inspector Kushal Singh, abruptly came in the middle of the road to stop the accused, and it was due to this sudden act that the motorcycle struck the complainant, and therefore there was no intention on the part of the accused to deter a public servant from discharging his duties.
30. This argument does not inspire confidence. The consistent testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 clearly establish that the accused had already violated the red light signal and was signalled to stop from a distance. Instead of complying, the accused chose to accelerate his vehicle and drove in a zig-zag manner. The act of State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 22/25 driving in such a manner, despite clear signals to stop, reflects a conscious and deliberate attempt to evade lawful apprehension. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the complainant moved towards the road to stop the accused, such an act would be well within the discharge of official duties of a traffic officer. The accused, being under a legal obligation to obey the signal to stop, cannot take advantage of his own wrongful conduct. The manner in which the accused accelerated and drove rashly clearly indicates knowledge and intention that such conduct would result in use of force against the public servant.
31. In the present case, the conduct of the accused unequivocally demonstrates an intention to avoid being stopped and, in that process, to use force against the public servant. Such acts squarely attract the provisions of Section 353 IPC. Once hurt is caused in the course of such act, Section 332 IPC is also attracted. Accordingly, the argument of lack of intention is rejected.
32. The second contention raised by the defence is that no independent public witness was joined in the investigation, thereby rendering the prosecution case doubtful. This argument is also devoid of merit. It has come on record through PW7 that public persons were indeed present at the spot but declined to join the investigation. It is a matter of common experience that members of the public are often reluctant to involve themselves in criminal proceedings.
State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 23/25
33. The law on this aspect is well settled. In Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that non-joining of public witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case where the evidence of official witnesses is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. In the present case, the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 are consistent, cogent and mutually corroborative. There is no material contradiction or infirmity that would discredit their version. Mere absence of independent witnesses, therefore, does not dent the prosecution case.
34. From the cumulative appreciation of evidence, it stands established that the accused, after violating the red light signal, deliberately failed to stop despite being signalled by traffic officials, drove his motorcycle in a rash and zig-zag manner, and in the process struck Inspector Kushal Singh, thereby using criminal force to deter him from discharge of his official duties and causing him simple injuries. The ingredients of offences under Sections 186, 353 and 332 IPC are thus clearly made out. Further, the learner's licence of the accused (Mark X2) shows that he was required to display an "L" sign on the vehicle, which was admittedly not present, thereby attracting liability under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The act of jumping the red light is also proved beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony, thereby attracting Section 119/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
35. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 24/25 prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Shahrukh is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/181 and 119/117 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Announced in the open court Digitally
signed by
SAYESHA
SAYESHA CHADHA
CHADHA Date:
today.
2026.04.28
17:20:25
+0530
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
[This judgment contains 25 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] State Vs. Shahrukh FIR No. 32/2017 PS Kotwali 25/25