Delhi District Court
State vs Prakash Yadav Etc on 28 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02) SOUTH-EAST
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CNR No: DLSE01-000211-2018
Session Case No.19/2018
FIR no. 812/2014
Police Station: Okhla Industrial Area
State
Versus
1. Prakash Yadav
Son of Girja Yadav,
Resident of Village Mosma,
PS BarsaliGanj, District Navada, Bihar.
2. Uday Kumar
Son of Jago Yadav,
Resident of Village Mosma,
PS BarsaliGanj, District Navada, Bihar.
3. Vijay Yadav
Son of Rajender Yadav,
Resident of Village Barapandiya,
PS Roh, District Navada, Bihar.
SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 1 of 37
Date of Institution : 13.07.2017
Judgment reserved on : 26.09.2024
Date of Decision : 28.09.2024
JUDGMENT
1. A police report was put up by the State through officer-in-charge of the police station Okhla Industrial Area before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take cognizance of offences under sections 186/353/332/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') against the accused persons, namely, Prakash Yadav, Uday Kumar, Vijay Yadav and Ram Swaroop for having committed the said offences and to proceed with committal of the case.
2. As per the police report on 03.11.2014, this case FIR was registered against the accused persons Vijay Yadav, Prakash Yadav and Uday Kumar in police station Okhla Industrial Area for the offences punishable under sections 186/353/332/308/34 IPC.
3. It is reported in the police report that upon receipt of information regarding fight on 03.11.2014 vide DD No.57B, Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash, along with Constable Premveer had reached the liquor shop situated near Domestic Container Depot Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi where Constable Devender and the staff of the liquor shop produced SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 2 of 37 three persons and sticks; their names on inquiry were revealed as Vijay Yadav, Prakash Yadav, Uday Kumar, who had suffered minor injuries in a fight among themselves and Constable Devender had informed that those three had assaulted Head Constable Padam Singh and Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash with sticks. It is further reported in police report that Head Constable Padam Singh was taken to Trauma Center, AIIMS hospital by ERV Staff in an ERV vehicle, therefore, leaving Constable Premveer at the spot, Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash had reached AIIMS Trauma Center where Head Constable Padam Singh was under treatment vide MLC No. 459362/14 and, on the MLC, the doctor had noted 'alleged history of assault' and opined the nature of injury to be 'simple by blunt object'. It is further reported in the police report that statement of Head Constable Padam Singh was recorded by the investigating officer.
4. As per the police report, it is inter-alia, stated by Head Constable Padam Singh that he was posted as Head Constable in police station Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi; that 03.11.2014, he was patrolling in the area of Beat No.6 along with Constable Devender Singh and at about 6.20 p.m., Constable Devender Singh was informed over the phone by Maan Singh, the manager of the liquor shop located near Container Yard, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi that a fight was going on there; that he along with Constable Devender had reached the liquor shop and noticed that some people with SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 3 of 37 sticks in their hands were creating ruckus; that the injured and Constable Devender Singh had tried to pacify them but suddenly, from the crowd, drivers of Asian Transport Company, who were already known to the injured being Beat Officer, namely, Ram Swaroop had hit him on the head and Vijay Yadav had hit him with a stick on his right hand and Prakash Yadav had hit on his waist and Uday Kumar had hit Constable Devender on his leg; that when the public had raised alarm, they started running away; that Constable Devender with the help of liquor shop manager Maan Singh and salesman Sundar Singh had overpowered Vijay Yadav, Prakash Yadav and Uday Yadav, however, Ram Swaroop managed to flee; that due to the injury, blood had started oozing out from his head and he was taken to AIIMS Trauma Center in an ERV vehicle with the police officer where he was being treated. it is further stated by Head Constable Padam Singh that the above four persons had intentionally attacked him and Constable Devender while they were discharging their duty as public servant and deter them from discharging their duty as such public servant, therefore, legal action should be taken against them.
5. It is further reported in police report that after obtaining the statement and MLC of the injured, Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash had come back, however, Constable Devender did not get his MLC prepared as he was not much injured.
SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 4 of 376. It is further reported in police report that from the statement, MLC and the circumstances, the offences under sections 186/353/332/308/34 IPC were made out and Sub- Inspector Ganga Prakash prepared a tehrir and sent Constable Premveer to the police station and got the case registered.
7. It is further reported in police report that during the course of investigation, Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash prepared the site-plan at the instance of the complainant and recorded the statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C.
8. It is further reported in police report that on 03.11.2014, the accused persons, Vijay Yadav, Prakash Yadav and Uday Kumar were arrested and on 04.11.2014 the accused Ram Swaroop was arrested and after interrogation, arrest related documents were prepared and separate discloser statements of the accused persons were recorded and the sticks used in the fight were recovered and were taken into custody as evidence and were lodged in the police Malkhana; and the accused persons were produced in the Court and sent to Judicial Custody.
9. It is further reported in police report that during the course of investigation, Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash had obtained MLC result and Form 12 was verified and permission under section 195 Cr.P.C. was obtained from higher authorities.
SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 5 of 3710. It is further reported in the police report that from the investigation conducted so far and the statement of the witnesses, sufficient evidence has been collected against the accused persons Vijay Yadav, Prakash Yadav, Uday Kumar & Ram Swaroop to charge-sheet them for the offences under sections 186/353/332/308/34 IPC.
11. It is further reported in the charge-sheet that the afore-said acts on the part of Vijay Yadav, Prakash Yadav, Uday Kumar & Ram Swaroop revealed commission of offences punishable under sections 186/353/332/308/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
12. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer had filed the charge sheet before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
13. On the police report, on 13.07.2017, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate having taken the cognizance of the offences, issued summons to the accused persons for their appearance.
14. On 18.12.2017, the accused persons appeared before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Copies of police report and other documents, in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to the accused persons.
SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 6 of 3715. On 23.12.2017, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate found the offence under section 308 IPC to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session and therefore, committed the case to the Court of Session.
16. On 20.02.2020, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused persons, the charge was framed against the accused persons Prakash Yadav, Uday Kumar and Vijay Yadav for their having committed offences punishable under section 186/353/308/332/34 Indian Penal Code.
17. The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons and they were asked if they pleaded guilty of the offence charged or claimed to be tried. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
18. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 DCP Amit Goel, PW2 Retd. Sub-Inspector Vijay Pal Singh, PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh, PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh, PW5 Man Singh, PW6 Rajinder Singh, PW7 Retd. Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash. During the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C, Ex.PW4/D1, Ex.PW4/D2, SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 7 of 37 Ex.PW4/D3, Ex.PW4/E, Ex.PW4/F, Ex.PW4/G, Ex.PW4/H, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW7/C, Ex.PW7/D, Ex.PW7/E, Ex.PW7/F, Ex.PW7/G, Ex.PW7/H, Ex.PW7/I, Mark X, Ex.P1 and Ex. MO-1 were also tendered in evidence.
19. It is important to note here that during trial, it was informed that the accused Ram Swaroop had died which fact was got verified and it was ordered that the case stand abated against the accused Ram Swaroop.
20. On 15.05.2024, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was posted for examination of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C and for their statements.
21. On 09.08.2024, this Court examined the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and their separate statement were recorded. During their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons, namely, Prakash Yadav, Uday Yadav and Vijay Yadav denied the correctness of incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. During their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons took the defence that they are innocent. It is further stated by the accused persons that they are falsely implicated and have nothing to do with the present case. The accused persons did not express their desire to lead evidence in their defence.
SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 8 of 3722. I have heard Mr. Narender Yadav Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Mrityunjay Sharma, Advocate for all the accused persons and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
23. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 DCP Amit Goel, PW2 Retd. Sub-Inspector Vijay Pal Singh, PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh, PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh, PW5 Man Singh, PW6 Rajinder Singh, PW7 Retd. Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C, Ex.PW4/D1, Ex.PW4/D2, Ex.PW4/D3, Ex.PW4/E, Ex.PW4/F, Ex.PW4/G, Ex.PW4/H, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW7/C, Ex.PW7/D, Ex.PW7/E, Ex.PW7/F, Ex.PW7/G, Ex.PW7/H, Ex.PW7/I, Mark X, Ex.P1; and Ex. MO-1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that four accused persons were charge-sheeted and one out of them has died. It is further submitted that PW1 DCP Amit Goel has proved the complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that from the testimonies of injured duly corroborated by other witnesses, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons. It is further submitted that the weapon of offence, the wooden sticks were recovered and the accused persons were apprehended from the spot.
SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 9 of 3724. Per contra, counsel for the accused has drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 DCP Amit Goel, PW2 Retd. Sub-Inspector Vijay Pal Singh, PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh, PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh, PW5 Man Singh, PW6 Rajinder Singh, PW7 Retd. Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C, Ex.PW4/D1, Ex.PW4/D2, Ex.PW4/D3, Ex.PW4/E, Ex.PW4/F, Ex.PW4/G, Ex.PW4/H, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW7/C, Ex.PW7/D, Ex.PW7/E, Ex.PW7/F, Ex.PW7/G, Ex.PW7/H, Ex.PW7/I, Mark X, Ex.P1 and Ex. MO-1, learned counsel for the accused persons has submitted that the prosecution has failed to specify who was fighting with whom. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to specify what official work was obstructed by the accused persons. It is further submitted that the allegations were that the injured was assaulted with wooden sticks however, what were recovered were bamboos. It is further submitted that one of the eye-witnesses, namely, Man Singh has failed to identify the accused persons. It is further submitted that no public person was joined in the investigation.
25. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 10 of 3726. The accused persons Prakash Yadav, Uday Kumar and Vijay Yadav have been charged for the offences punishable under sections 186/353/308/332/34 Indian Penal Code. Sections 186/353/308/332/34 Indian Penal Code read as follows:
"186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public function-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 extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty-Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to 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.
"308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide.-- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Illustration A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at Z, under such circumstances that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A has committed the offence defined in this section.SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 11 of 37
332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty-Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
27. The facts of the case have already been noticed earlier, here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution.
28. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had examined seven (7) witnesses.
29. PW1 DCP Amit Goel has deposed that on 03.01.2014, an information was received at the police station Okhla Industrial Area vide DD No.57B regarding quarrel and same was marked to Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash. It is further deposed by PW1 DCP Amit Goel that Constable Devender was attacked by the accused persons, namely, Vijay, Prakash and Uday with wooden sticks and Head Constable Padam Singh also received injuries during the incident. It is further deposed by PW1 DCP Amit Goel that on the basis of statement of Head Constable Padam Singh, present FIR under sections 308/186/332/353/34 IPC was registered and PW1 DCP Amit SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 12 of 37 Goel, in the capacity of ACP Kalkaji (as he was then) had given a complaint (Ex.PW1/A) under section 195 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of the accused persons.
30. PW2 Sub-Inspector (Retired) Vijay Pal Singh has deposed that on 03.11.2014 at about 09:50 p.m., Constable Premvir had brought a rukka sent by Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash for registration of FIR and on the basis of said rukka, he had registered the FIR (Ex.PW2/A) of the present case on which he had made endorsement (Ex.PW2/B). It is further deposed by PW2 Sub-Inspector Vijay Pal Singh that he had issued certificate (Ex.PW2/C) under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and after registration of FIR, he had handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Constable Premvir. It is further deposed by PW2 Sub-Inspector Vijay Pal Singh that the copy of FIR was computer generated and was true and original of the same was kept in safe and secured custody in the police station which cannot be tampered with. It is further deposed by PW2 Sub- Inspector Vijay Pal Singh that he had also registered DD No.21A dated 03.11.2014 (Ex.PW2/D) and DD No. 23A (Ex.PW2/E).
31. PW 3 Head Constable Padam Singh has deposed that on 03.11.2014, he was on beat patrolling duty at beat no.6 along with Constable Devender and at about 06.20 p.m., Constable Devender had received telephonic call from Man Singh, Manager of the wine shop near Container yard, Okhla Phase-II regarding SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 13 of 37 quarrel upon which they had gone there and had found a quarrel was going on between the manager of the wine shop and many public persons, who were gathered there. It is further deposed by PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh that public persons were having danda in their hands and he along with Constable Devender had tried to intervene and pacify the matter, however, suddenly the accused Ram Swaroop had assaulted him on his head with danda and the accused Vijay had assaulted him on his right hand with danda and the accused Prakash Yadav had given danda blow on his waist and the accused Uday had assaulted Constable Devender on his leg with danda. It is further deposed by PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh that public persons had raised alarm due to which, the accused persons started fleeing from the spot, however, Manager Man Singh, salesman Sunder Singh and Constable Devender had apprehended the accused persons Vijay, Prakash and Uday but the accused Ram Swaroop had succeeded to flee from the spot. It is further deposed by PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh that due to his head injury, blood was oozing out from his head, and in the meanwhile, ERV van had also reached there and Assistant Sub-Inspector Vijay Pal had taken him to AIIMS Trauma Center, where he had got medically examined. It is further deposed by PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh that Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash had come to the hospital and recorded his statement (Ex.PW3/A) and after his medical examination, he had gone to his home. PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh had correctly identified six photographs (Mark 'X' colly) and had also correctly identified the accused persons SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 14 of 37 Prakash and Uday in the Court. It is further deposed by PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh that he could also identify the accused Vijay if shown to him, however, the accused Vijay was exempted from personal appearance and the defence counsel had not disputed the identity of the accused Vijay. PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh had correctly identified bamboo dandas (Ex. P1 colly) vide which the accused persons had given beatings to him and Constable Devender.
32. PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh has deposed that on 03.11.2014, he along with Head Constable Padam Singh were on patrolling duty in the beat area i.e. beat no.6 and around 06.00-06.15 p.m., Manager of English Wine Shop at Okhla Phase-II near container yard, had made a call to him and had told that 3-4 persons having dandas were creating ruckus. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh that on that information, they both had reached there and saw that three-four persons having dandas in their hands were creating ruckus and were giving stick blows on the vehicles passing through the said place.
33. PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh has further deposed that they had tried to make them understand but they remained adamant and drivers of Asian Transport Service had assaulted them with dandas. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub- Inspector Devender Singh that since, it was area of his beat, SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 15 of 37 therefore, he knew them prior to the incident and the driver Ramswroop had caused injury with danda upon Head Constable Padam Singh. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh that the accused Vijay Yadav had caused injury on the right hand of Head Constable Padam Singh and the driver Prakash Yadav had given danda blow on the back of Head Constable Padam Singh and the driver Uday Kumar had also caused injury upon Head Constable Padam and the accused Ram Swaroop had also caused injury upon his leg. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh that the blood started oozing out from the body of Head Constable Padam Singh.
34. PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh has correctly identified the three accused persons, namely, Vijay Yadav, Prakash Yadav and Uday Yadav ( the accused Ram Swaroop was not present since died) and PW4 deposed that they had apprehended the accused persons, Vijay Yadav, Prakash Yadav and Uday Yadav at the spot with danda and the fourth one had run away from the spot. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub- Inspector Devender Singh that they had made a call to the police station and one ERV Assistant Sub-Inspector Vijay Pal reached at the spot and Head Constable Padam Singh was taken to Trauma Center, AIIMS. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh that he was having a very minor injury, so, he did not get his medical examination conducted. It is further SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 16 of 37 deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh that the investigating officer Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash had reached the spot and made enquiry from him at the spot and then he had gone to hospital and after sometime, he had returned to the spot and sent the rukka to the police station through Constable Premvir for registration of FIR. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh that after getting registered the FIR, Constable Premvir brought the copy of the same and handed over it to investigating officer and the investigating officer had arrested the accused persons Prakash Yadav, Uday Kumar and Vijay Yadav vide their arrest memos (Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C). It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh that the investigating officer seized the danda from the spot through the seizure memo (Ex.PW4/D1, Ex.PW4/D2 and Ex.PW4/D3). It is further deposed by PW4 Sub- Inspector Devender Singh that the investigating officer had interrogated the accused persons and recorded their statements. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh that the investigating officer had prepared the pointing out memo of the place of occurrence (Ex.PW4/E) and also prepared the site- plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.PW4/F).
35. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh that on 04.11.2014, the investigating officer had arrested the accused Ram Swaroop and prepared his arrest memo (Ex.PW4/G) and conducted his personal search vide memo SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 17 of 37 (Ex.PW4/H) and also interrogated the accused Ram Swaroop and recorded his disclosure statement. It is further deposed by PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh that the investigating officer had recorded his statement in that regard.
36. I can identify the weapon of offence i.e. dandas used in the commission of offence, if shown to me.
37. PW5 Man Singh has deposed that on 03.11.2014, he was posted as Manager in the Wine Shop at Okhla and on that day at about 06.00 p.m., 5-6 persons, who were truck drivers by profession were carrying bamboos in their hands in intoxicated state, were fighting with the passersby and damaging the passing vehicles by hitting them with dandas. It is further deposed by PW5 Man Singh that he had informed Head Constable Devender, who was posted in the said beat and apprised him about the activities of those persons. It is further deposed by PW5 Man Singh that Head Constable Devender had reached there and tried to make those drivers understand to refrain from their activities but they did not pay any heed to his request and in the meantime, Head Constable Padam Singh had also reached there. It is further deposed by PW5 Man Singh that they had hit Padam with danda on his head and blood started oozing from his head and in the meantime, one police vehicle had arrived there and he along with his salesman Sundar Singh and Head Constable Padam Singh helped them and made Head Constable Padam Singh sit in the SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 18 of 37 said vehicle and he was taken to hospital. It is further deposed by PW5 Man Singh that in the meantime, another police vehicle had also arrived there and he along with Sundar Singh and Head Constable Devender had handed over three persons apprehended by them to the said police officials and 2-3 persons amongst them had fled from the spot and the police had taken them to the police station and the police had also enquired from him regarding the present case.
38. It is further deposed by PW5 Man Singh that he could not identify the accused persons as a long time has elapsed since the date of occurrence.
39. PW6 Rajinder Singh, Record Clerk from AIIMS Trauma Center having seen the MLC dated 03.11.2014, deposed that it was prepared by Dr. Rakesh Kumar for medical examination of injured Padam Singh son of Uday Raj Singh and the said doctor has now left the hospital and his present whereabouts were not available in the hospital. PW6 Rajinder Singh has identified the doctor's signature at point A on the said MLC (Ex.PW-6/A) as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duty.
40. PW7 Sub-Inspector (Retired) Ganga Prakash has deposed that on 03.11.2014, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at the police station Okhla Industrial Area and on that day, while I SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 19 of 37 was on emergency duty, a call vide DD No.57-B (Ex.PW- 7/A) was received and pursuant thereof, he along with Constable Premvir had reached the place of incident i.e. Domestic Container Depot, OIA Phase-2, opposite to Sharab Theka. It is further deposed by PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash that Constable Devender along with public persons were found present and they had apprehended three persons whose names were revealed as Uday Kumar, Vijay Yadav and Prakash Yadav and the said Constable Devender had revealed to him that the said persons had caused injuries to him and to Head Constable Padam Singh with three wooden sticks. It is further deposed by PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash that Constable Devender had produced the sticks and further disclosed to him that the said sticks were recovered from the accused persons and it was also revealed that the injured Head Constable Padam Singh had already been removed to AIIMS Trauma Center. It is further deposed by PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash that he also had gone there leaving behind Constable Devender and Constable Premvir at the spot and Head Constable Padam Singh was found admitted at AIIMS Trauma Center. It is further deposed by PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash that he had collected his MLC and also recorded his statement (Ex.PW3/A) bearing signature of PW7 at point A. It is further deposed by PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash that he had returned at the place of incident and made endorsement at point B to B on the said statement bearing his signature at point B and got the present FIR registered through Constable Premvir. It is further deposed by PW7 Sub-
SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 20 of 37Inspector Ganga Prakash that he had prepared the site-plan (Ex.PW4/F) and in the meantime, Constable Premvir had come back at the place of incident and handed over to him the copy of FIR and rukka.
41. It is further deposed by PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash that he had interrogated the said accused persons Prakash Yadav, Uday Kumar and Vijay Yadav and arrested them vide arrest memo (Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C) bearing his signature at point B and also conducted their personal search vide memos (Ex.PW4/H) bearing his signature at point B, (Ex.PW7/B) and (Ex.PW7/C), respectively, bearing his signature at point A and further interrogated the said accused persons Prakash Yadav, Uday Kumar and Vijay Yadav and recorded their disclosure statements (Ex.PW7/D, Ex.PW7/E and Ex.PW7/F), bearing his signature at point A.
42. It is further deposed by PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash that he had also taken into possession the said wooden sticks vide three separate seizure memos (Ex.PW4/D1, Ex.PW4/D2 and Ex. PW4/D3) bearing his signature at point B, and got conducted the medical examination of the accused persons and they were produced before the concerned Court next day and were sent to judicial custody.
SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 21 of 3743. It is further deposed by PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash that next day i.e. on 04.11.2013., he along with Constable Devender/injured went in search of the accused Ram Saroop and pursuant to a secret information, they had reached near Okhla Metro Station and arrested the accused Ram Saroop at the instance of secret informer as well as on the identification of Constable Devender and the arrest memo of the accused Ram Saroop is Ex.PW4/G, bearing my signature at point B and conducted his personal search vide memo (Ex.PW7/G) bearing his signature at point A and further interrogated the accused Ram Saroop and recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.PW7/H).
44. It is further deposed by PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash that pursuant to his disclosure statement, the accused Ram Saroop had led them to the container yard behind Hanuman Mandir and got recovered wooden stick used in the commission of the offence and he had seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW7/I), bearing his signature at point A and the accused Ram Saroop had also pointed place of incident vide memo (Ex.PW4/E), bearing his signature at point B.
45. It is further deposed by PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash that during the course of investigation, he had also obtained the complaint (Ex.PW1/A) under section 195 Cr.P.C and the photographs Mark X (Colly) were the photographs of the SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 22 of 37 injured Head Constable Padam Singh which he had taken at the hospital.
46. It is further deposed by PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash that he had recorded the statement of the witnesses who had been associated with him during the course of investigation, prepared the chargesheet and submitted the same in the Court.
47. PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash has correctly identified the accused persons, namely, Prakash Yadav, Uday Kumar and Vijay Yadav in the Court and deposed that the accused Ram Saroop has died. It is further deposed by PW7 Sub- Inspector Ganga Prakash that he correctly identified the case property i.e. four bamboo sticks as Ex.MO-1 (Colly).
48. In the light of the charge framed against accused persons and the arguments advanced before the Court, following are the points for determination:
a) Whether the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed public servants in the discharge of their public functions and used criminal force by assaulting the public servants to deter them from discharging of their official duty.
b) Whether the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intentions, had done any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 23 of 37 that, if they by that act caused death, they would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and had caused hurt to the injured by such act.
c) Whether the accused persons, in furtherance of your common intentions voluntarily caused the public servant to deter public servant from his duty.
DISCUSSION ON THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION
49. As noted above, the accused persons have been charged for having committing the offences under sections 186/353/308/332/34 IPC.
50. The essential ingredients of offence under section 186 IPC are as follows:
1) A public servant was in discharge of his official duty;
2) Voluntarily obstruction was caused to such public servant.
3) Such obstruction was in the discharge of public functions of such public servant.
51. The essential ingredients of offence under section 332 IPC are as follows:
1) Hurt was caused to public servant;
2) It was hurt while such public servant was acting in the discharge of his duty as such; or
3) It was caused to prevent or to deter him from discharging his duty as such public servant; or SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 24 of 37
4) Such hurt was inconsequent of anything done or attempted to be done by such public servants in lawful discharge of his duty.
52. The essential ingredients of offence under section 353 IPC are as follows:
1) Accused assaulted or used criminal force to a public servant;
2) Such public servant was then acting in the discharge of his duty;
3) The accused assaulted with the intention of preventing or deterring such public servant from discharging his duty, or
4) it was used in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by the said public servant.
53. The essential ingredients of offence under section 308 IPC are as follows:
1) Accused committed an act;
2) The act was committed with an intention of knowledge of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder;
3) The act was committed in such circumstances that if the accused by that had caused the death of the victim, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide.
54. On these points, to prove the commission of offence by the accused persons, the testimonies of PW1 DCP Amit Goel, PW2 Sub-Inspector Vijay Pal Singh, PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh, PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh, PW5 Man Singh and PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash are relevant.
SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 25 of 3755. Since, one of the offences the accused persons have been charged with is under section 186 IPC, therefore, in order to prove the complaint/sanction under section 195 Cr.P.C, the prosecution has examined PW1 DCP Amit Goel.
56. As per the testimonies of PW1 DCP Amit Goel, on the basis of statement of Head Constable Padam Singh, present FIR under sections 308/186/332/353/34 IPC was registered and in the capacity of ACP Kalkaji (as he was then), he had given a complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of the accused persons and he has proved the complaint (Ex.PW1/A) and his signature thereon. A perusal of complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/A) reveals that DCP Amit Goel (the then ACP Kalkaji) had given complaint/sanction under section 195 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of the accused persons in the present case.
57. For proving the incident, it is in the evidence of PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh that on 03.11.2014, he was posted as Head Constable at police station Okhla Industrial Area and was on beat patrolling duty along with constable Devender and at about 06.20 p.m., on receiving a telephonic call from Wine Shop Manager Man Singh regarding quarrel by Constable Devender, they had reached at the spot and found the quarrel was going on between the manager of the Wine Shop and many public persons having danda in their hands; Head Constable Padam Singh along with Constable Devender had tried to pacify SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 26 of 37 them but suddenly, the accused Ram Swaroop had assaulted him on his head with danda and the accused Vijay assaulted him on his right hand with danda and the accused Prakash Yadav had given danda blow on his waist and the accused Uday had assaulted Constable Devender on his leg with danda; on raising of alarm by the public persons, the accused persons started fleeing away from the spot, however, the manager Man Singh, Salesman Sunder Singh and Constable Devender had apprehended the accused persons Vijay, Prakash and Uday, however, the accused Ram Swaroop had succeeded to flee from the spot.
58. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh that due to head injury, blood was oozing out and he was taken to Trauma Center, AIIMS by ERV Van, medically examined and his statement (Ex.PW3/A) was registered.
59. PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh (the then Constable), who had accompanied PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh, has fully corroborated the testimonies of PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh and deposed on similar lines.
60. PW5 Man Singh is the manager of the Wine Shop where the incident has taken place. PW5 Man Singh has also fully corroborated the testimonies of PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh and PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh regarding SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 27 of 37 the incident except the identity of the accused persons for which he has deposed that he could not identify the accused persons as long time has lapsed since the date of offence. It is noteworthy here that in his evidence, PW5 Man Singh has specifically stated that he along with Sunder Singh and Constable Devender had handed over three of the offenders who were apprehended by them to the police officials and the police had taken them to the police station.
61. The testimonies of PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash, the investigating officer are also relevant. As per the testimonies of PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash, on 03.11.2014 on receiving of a call vide DD No.57B (Ex.PW7/A), he had reached at the place of incident and found that Constable Devender along with public persons had apprehended three persons whose names were revealed as Uday Kumar, Vijay Yadav and Prakash Yadav; Constable Devender had revealed to him that the said persons had caused injuries to him and Head Constable Padam Singh with three wooden sticks. It is also in the evidence of PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash that Head Constable Padam Singh had already been removed and admitted to Trauma Center AIIMS, so he had also reached there, collected MLC and recorded his statement, made endorsement thereon and got the present FIR registered and thereafter, prepared site plan, interrogated the accused persons, arrested them, conducted personal search and recorded their disclosure statements and had SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 28 of 37 also taken the wooden sticks into police possession. It is also in the evidence of PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash that on the next day he along with Constable Devender had gone in search of the accused Ram Swaroop and pursuant to the secret information, he had arrested the accused on identification of Constable Devender, personally searched him and after further interrogation, recorded his disclosure statement and the accused Ram Swaroop had led them to a place behind Hanuman Mandir and got recovered the wooden sticks used in the commission of offence and the accused also pointed out the place of incident. It is also in the evidence of PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash that he had obtained complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/A). PW7 also proved the photographs of the injured and the fact that he had recorded the statement of the witnesses. In his evidence, PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash has fully proved the case set up by the prosecution and duly corroborated the testimonies of the injured persons Head Constable Padam Singh and Constable Devender.
62. Regarding registration of this case, the testimonies of PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh and PW2 Duty Officer Sub-Inspector Vijay Pal Singh are relevant.
63. As per the testimonies of PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh, his statement was recorded by the investigating officer at Trauma Center, AIIMS who has also proved his SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 29 of 37 statement (Ex.PW3/A) and signature thereon. As per the testimonies of PW2 Sub-Inspector Vijay Pal Singh, on 03.11.2014, he was working as Duty Officer from 08:00 p.m. to 08.00 a.m. and at about 09.50 p.m., Constable Premvir had handed over to him one rukka sent by Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash for registration of FIR and on the basis of said rukka, he had recorded FIR (Ex.PW2/A). PW2 Sub-Inspector Vijay Pal Singh has proved his endorsement (Ex.PW2/B) on the rukka. PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash, the investigating officer of this case, has also corroborated the testimonies of PW3 injured Head Constable Padam Singh and PW2 Sub-Inspector Vijay Pal Singh regarding registration of the case.
64. In the light of testimonies of PW1 DCP Amit Goel, PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh, PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash and PW2 Sub-Inspector Vijay Pal, the registration of FIR against the accused persons for the offence committed by them, is duly proved and established. It is not the case of the accused persons that there was any unnecessary delay in registration of FIR and during the course of arguments also, the process of registration of FIR is not challenged.
65. For proving the injuries caused to the person of the injured, the testimonies of PW6 Rajender Singh, record clerk from Trauma Center, AIIMS, PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh and PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender are relevant.
SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 30 of 3766. In order to prove the MLC of the injured and the nature of injury of the person of the injured, the testimonies of PW6 Rajender Singh, Record Clerk, Trauma Center, AIIMS are relevant. As per the testimonies of PW6 Rajender Singh, MLC dated 03.11.2014 of the injured Padam Singh was prepared by Dr. Rakesh Kumar who has left the services of hospital and his whereabouts are not known. PW6 has identified the signature of doctor on MLC (Ex.PW6/A) as he had seen the doctor writing and signing during the course of his official duty. A perusal of MLC (Ex.PW6/A) of the patient Padam Singh reveals that following injuries were found on his person: -
1. Lacerated ILW on Occiput ODF size 3cm x 1/2cm;
2. Swelling on FA of size 2 cmx 2cm;
3. Bruise on back in lumber region of size 4 cm x 3cm
67. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version given by either of them and their testimonies have remained consistent to prove the fact of causing grievous injury on the person of the injured Padam Singh.
68. Regarding arrest and identification of the accused, the testimonies of the investigating officer/PW7 Sub-Inspector SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 31 of 37 Ganga Prakash, PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender and PW5 Man Singh are relevant.
69. Regarding arrest of the accused, as per the testimonies of the investigating officer/PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash, PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender and PW5 Man Singh, the accused persons, namely, Vijay, Prakash and Uday were apprehended by Constable Devender, Wine Shop Manager Man Singh and Salesman Surender from the spot and were made over to the investigating officer who had arrested them. As per the testimonies of PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash and PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender, on the next day, they had arrested the accused Ram Swaroop on the basis of secret information.
70. Regarding identification of the accused persons, PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh, PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender, PW5 Man Singh and PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash are relevant. PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh (injured), PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender and PW7 Sub-Inspector Ganga Prakash have correctly identified the accused persons to be the offenders who had caused injuries to the person of PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh. During cross-examination of PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh by the defence counsel, a question was put to him that there was a quarrel going on between the public and the shop keeper which was admitted to be correct by the witness. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 32 of 37 persons were creating ruckus in front of Wine Shop and from the question put to PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh, such case set up by the prosecution is proved.
71. In the light of the testimonies of PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh (injured), PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh and PW5 Man Singh, identification of the accused persons Prakash Yadav, Uday Yadav and Vijay Yadav as the person who had caused injuries to the injured PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh and PW4 Sub-Inspector Devender Singh is duly established and proved.
72. For the purpose of constituting an attempt under section 308 IPC, the prosecution needs to establish the following three ingredients, namely: -
(i) Accused committed an act;
(ii) The act was committed with the intention or knowledge of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder;
(iii) The act was committed in such circumstances that if the accused by that had caused the death of the victim, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide.
73. From the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution which has been discussed herein above, the prosecution has been successful in proving that the accused persons Prakash Yadav, Uday Yadav and Vijay Yadav had caused 'simple' injuries to the SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 33 of 37 person of the injured Head Constable Padam Singh. The injuries caused to the person of the injured have been duly proved by examining PW6 Rajender, record clerk from Trauma Center AIIMS. In these facts and circumstances and the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused Prakash Yadav, Uday Yadav and Vijay Yadav on the date of incident had caused simple injury to Padam Singh.
74. Regarding trustworthiness of the injured eye witness, it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Yoginder Singh case's (supra) as follows:
"28. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in mind.
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of an injured witness is always of great value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(d) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(e) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 34 of 37
75. There are three eye witnesses of the incident, namely, Head Constable Padam Singh (the complainant/injured), Constable Devender (another injured who accompanied the complainant to the place of incident) and PW5 Maan Singh (Manager of the Wine Shop where the incident had happened), who have given their ocular account of this case. All the three witnesses did not have animus or grudge against the accused Prakash Yadav, Uday Yadav and Vijay Yadav. The manner of the incident as described by them is corroborated by the medical evidence which shows the presence of injury on the person of the complainant/injured, attributable to blunt object, namely, wooden sticks. Further, the accused persons have not been able to spell out any plausible reason for their false implications. As direct testimonies of injured witnesses are available to prove the guilt of the accused persons and their testimonies are the biggest guarantee of the truthfulness of the prosecution case as they have suffered injuries.
76. From the statement (Ex.PW3/A) made by the complainant for registration of the case till the testimonies given by him during trial in the Court, the consistent case of the complainant, PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh is that on receiving an information regarding quarrel near Wine Shop, when he along with Constable Devender had reached the spot and found that some public persons including the accused persons were creating ruckus at the spot and the accused persons SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 35 of 37 were having dandas in their hands in drunken state; when the police officials (PW3 and PW4) had tried to pacify them, the accused persons had attacked the police officials with wooden sticks, causing injuries to PW3 Head Constable Padam Singh and PW4 Constable Devender Singh. PW4 Constable Devender has also been consistent in his evidence to corroborate the testimonies of PW3.
77. In the light of the evidence and discussion above- stated, it has been proved that (i) the accused persons Prakash Yadav, Uday Yadav and Vijay Yadav have inflicted simple injury to the person of the complainant/injured Head Constable Padam Singh and Constable Devender Singh with the wooden sticks, (ii) Head Constable Padam Singh and Constable Devender Singh, both being public servants, were acting in discharge of their duties as such, for maintaining law and order, (iii) the hurt was caused to the injured police officials to prevent or to deter them from discharging their duties as such public servants, (iv) such hurt was inconsequent of anything done or attempted to be done by such public servants in lawful discharge of their duties, (v) the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, caused injuries on the head, right hand and waist of Head Constable Padam Singh and on the leg of Constable Devender with wooden sticks, (vi) all the accused persons have acted in concert in inflicting injuries to the public servants. The accused SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 36 of 37 persons, Prakash Yadav, Uday Yadav and Vijay Yadav have not tendered any reasonable explanation of their conduct.
78. To sum up, in view of above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the charge under section 186/353/332/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons Prakash Yadav, Uday Yadav and Vijay Yadav, so the accused persons Prakash Yadav, Uday Yadav and Vijay Yadav are found guilty of having committed the said offences and hence they are convicted of offences punishable under sections 186/353/332/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
79. Let the convicts be heard on the question of sentence. Digitally signed by DR DR RAKESH KUMAR RAKESH Date:
KUMAR 2024.09.28
17:40:00
+0530
Pronounced in the open Court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR)
on 28.09.2024. Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi SC No.19/2018 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area State v. Prakash Yadav & Ors. Page 37 of 37