Delhi District Court
State vs . Lalit Mohan on 17 January, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA M.M06
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Serial No. : 1210/2 dated 25.6.04
Unique Identification No. R0
State Vs. Lalit Mohan
FIR NO.: 290/98
P.S. : R.K PURAM
U/S.: : 186/353/332/323/323 IPC
J U D G M E N T
a. Sl. No. of the case and : 1210/2 dt. 22.5.1999 date of its institution b. Name of the complainant : ASI Sube Singh, No. 433/SW, PS R. K. Puram, New Delhi.
c. Date of commission of
offence : 21.5.1998
d. Name of the accused : Lalit Mohan @ Budo S/o Sh. K.
P. Singh, R/o T9, Subhash
Market, Nanak Pura, New Delhi
e. Offence complained of : U/s 186/353/332/323/323 IPC
f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g. Case reserved for orders : 17.1.2012
h. Final order : Acquitted
i Date of such order : 17.1.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. Accused is acquitted for the reason that prosecution failed to prove the motive of alleged wrongful acts of the accused. 2
2. Prosecution case was that on 21.5.98 at about 11.30PM at NDMC Charakh Palika Hospital, Moti Bagh, New Delhi accused voluntarily obstructed ASI Sube Singh, a public servant, on security picket duty in the discharge of his public duties. Further accused assaulted, used criminal force and voluntarily caused hurt to said ASI Sube Singh, on the above date, time and place in question and therefore, committed offences punishale u/s 186/332/353 IPC.
3.After the registration of the FIR, the police conducted necessary investigation and filed the challan u/s 186/353/332/323 IPC against the accused.
3.After the filing of the challan, accused was summoned, copies were supplied to the accused and notice for the offence punishable u/s 186/353/332 IPC was framed against the accused on 21.5.1998.
4.In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. PW1 Ct. Harnam Singh deposed that on 21.5.1998 he was posted at PS R K Puram and on receiving DD no. 32A he alongwith SI J P Singh reached Charak Palika Hospital and came to know that the person who was quarrellings was removed by PCR van. He did not find any witnesses there and subsequently returned to PS, where he found one person 3 grappling with duty officer namely ASI Sube Singh. The said person was accused in question. Subsequently, he was controlled physically and then medically examined. Accused was searched vide memo Ex. PW1/A. Cloths and specks of accused were sealed vide Ex.PW1/B. Case property was identified as Ex.P1 and P2. Other case property was marked as P3 to P11. Seizure memo Ex. PW1/C for collection of aforesaid case property was prepared in his presence. PW2 ASI Sube Singh, was partly cross examine dby Ld. Counsel for the accused. Subsequently, before he could be completely cross examined, he expired. Thus his cross examination remained deferred with the order of the court and could not be completed. Therefore, his evidence was not completed as per section 137 Indian Evidence Act and was not appreciated by me. PW3 Ct. Satender Singh deposed that on 12.5.1998 at about 12.30am, ASI Prakash produced accused in the in the PS. Accused had hit ASI Sube Singh with the helmet and subsequently, he was controlled physically by the police official. In the scuffle, the buttons of the shirt of ASI Sube Singh were broken and accused was then, apprehended by SI J P Singh, Ct. Harnam Singh and PW 3. Case property was sealed in the presence of PW3 and accused was arrested and was locked up. Various memos viz. Ex. PW1/A to PW1/D were 4 prepared. Case property Ex.P1 to P11 were sealed. PW4 S S Rawat deposed that MLCs Ex.PW4/A to PW4/C were prepared by the concerned doctors, who had left the services of the concerned hospital. There hand writings/signature were identified by PW4. PW5 Insp. Jai Pal Singh deposed that on 21/22.5.1998, at about 12.00am he receipt of DD no.32A, Ex.PW2/A regarding a quarrel at Charak Palika Hospital. Subsequently, he alongwith Ct. Harnam Singh reached at the spot and found that the quarreling persons were lifted by PCR. Subsequently, on returning to PS he found ASI Om Prakash had brought the accused and accused was found scuffling with ASI Sube Singh. Subsequently, accused was apprehended, Case property was seized, accused was medically examined and matter was reported to senior officials by moving a complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC before Ld. ACMM concerned Ex. PW5/H. Subsequently, after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. PW6 ACP Harish Kumar deposed that he had made a complaint Ex. PW5/H. PW7 HC Shyam Lal Meena deposed that the as per record order no. 42064200/HAR/SWD was destroyed on 22.5.1998.2. In the statement of accused u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C accused has deposed that he has not committed any offence. He did not opt to lead DE.
5
5.I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP on behalf of the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel on behalf of the accused and have gone through the documents on record, carefully.
6. Prosecution story rested on a quarrel, which occurred at Charak Palika hospital on the night of 21/22.5.1998. It was the said fight/quarrel which was reported in DD no. 32A, Ex. PW2/B, which led the police to come into action. In this regard, testimonies of PW1 and PW5 were relevant and the same are appreciated here. The aforesaid DD entry nowhere stated that it was accused in question who was quarreling at the hospital. It was also not reported as to with whom, the said person was quarreling and what was the reason of the said quarrel. All the aforesaid aspects, were material and were supposed to be investigated by the IO concerned/PW5. The said aspect were not investigated. Even PW3 and PW5 who went to the spot, on receiving the aforesaid DD entry, deposed in their testimonies that there were no eye witnesses to the said occurrence and no investigation was carried out, to unearth to cause of the said quarrel. Before, the arrival of PW1 and PW5 at the spot, the alleged quarreling parties were taken by PCR Van. No investigation was carried out with regard to the place where the said PCR Van had taken the said quarreling person. The net result was, after considering the 6 testimonies of PW1 and PW5, I did not gather the ground based on which quarrel at Charak Palika hospital on 21.5.98 had occurred. Consequently, the said incident became doubtful. It was significant to note here that PW3 in his testimony had deposed that in the factual situation, he alongwith IO concerned presumed that accused had quarreled with Ct Ashok Thapa at Charak Palika Hospital. Basis of such presumption was nowhere explained by this witness. Thus, in such circumstances, I did not believe the version of the prosecution, that a quarrel had occurred between accused and alleged Ct. Ashok Thapa at Charak Palika Hospital. Moving further, both the aforesaid witnesses had deposed that in their presence accused had scuffled and hit ASI Sube Singh in the PS. None of them deposed the reason of the said quarrel between accused and ASI Sube Singh. Issues like who was the aggressor, who did the wrongful act first which led to quarrel in question etc. remained unanswered. The net result of said unanswered questions was that, I failed to find the motive/intention of accused hitting/quarreling with ASI Sube Singh/complainant. It was not the case of prosecution that accused was in the habit of hitting police officials, while they were discharging their officials duty. Therefore, testimonies of PW3 and PW5 were discarded by me as they were not reliable 7 and trust worthy.
7.PW3 was the witness in whose presence quarrel between accused and complainant had occurred. It was nowhere mentioned in his testimonies, the reason of the quarrel in question. Under normal circumstances, nobody would quarrel with any person, just like that. There must be some reasons, for doing so. I am afraid, in this case, I did not find any reason for quarreling. This witness deposed story from one side i.e. accused being the aggressor. Reasons of such behavior of accused was not deposed by him. His testimony therefore, was that of a tutored witness and thus discarded by me. Section 186 IPC talks about punishment to be awarded to a person who obstruct public servant in discharging public functions. In this case no evidence was led by the prosecution, to the effect that complainant was discharging some public function and accused had obstructed him from doing so. If a public person is on his duty and sitting idle, doing nothing and at that time he quarrel with somebody then, the said quarreling person, cannot be booked under Section 186 IPC. It was mandatory was the prosecution to prove during evidence, that the public servant in question was performing some public functions. In this case, evidence to the effect that accused had quarreled with the complainant, was on record. 8 The exact public function, which was performed or to be performed by the complainant, was found missing. Thus, Section 186 IPC was not made out.
8.Section 332 IPC talks about punishment to be awarded to person who deter a public person from his duty. In this case, again the exact public function which was supposed to be performed by the complainant and which was deterred by the accused, was not mentioned in the prosecution story. So, Section 223 IPC is not made out against accused.
9.Section 353 IPC talks about punishment to be awarded to a person who assault or uses criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty. In my proceeding appreciation of evidence, testimonies of PW1 and 3 and 5 were not believed by me. They were the witnesses who could have proved the aforesaid allegations. In the absence of their testimonies, I did not find accused guilty u/s 353 IPC.
10.Before coming to the conclusion it was relevant to appreciate the probable defence of the accused, which was that he had been falsely implicated in this case. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, he himself admitted that he had exchanged hot words with one Prem Singh on the relevant day in question. On one hand various aspects, as mentioned above were not investigated by the police, so as to prove its 9 case beyond reasonable doubts and on other hand, I found that the suggestions of the accused, of being falsely implicated, to be genuine. Prosecution thus failed to discharge its initial onus of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.
11.In view of aforesaid appreciation of evidence, prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Lalit Mohan is acquitted of the charged offence after giving him benefit of doubt. Bail bonds are not cancelled, as accused failed to furnish fresh bail bond u/s 437 Cr.PC. The said bail bonds shall remain effective for six months from today. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open Court
Court on 17.1.2012 (Prashant Sharma)
MM06/Saket Court Complex
New Delhi/17.01.2012