Delhi District Court
State vs Pawan on 19 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. HARSHITA MISHRA
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURT: DELHI
STATE Vs PAWAN Digitally signed
by HARSHITA
HARSHITA MISHRA
CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 MISHRA Date:
2026.02.19
17:02:33
FIR NO. 142/2011
+0530
PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD
U/S: 186/353/332 IPC
THIS IS A MORE THAN 10 YEARS OLD CASE.
ORAL JUDGMENT
New Case No. : 293166/2016
CNR No. : DLCT020007942013
Date of commission of offence : 11.07.2011
Date of institution of the case : 27.06.2012
Name of the complainant : HC Randheer Singh
Name of accused and address : (1) Sh. Pawan,
S/o Sh. Shankar Lal,
R/o H. No. 16/372, Bapa
Nagar, Karol Bagh, New
Delhi-110005.
Offence complained of or proved : Accused Pawan was arraigned
for the offences under Sections
186/353/332 IPC.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Accused Pawan is convicted
for the offences under Sections
186/353/332 IPC.
STATE Vs PAWAN
CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016
FIR NO. 142/2011
PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD
U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC
Page 1 of 21
Date on which matter reserved for
Pronouncement of Judgment : 18.02.2026
Date of judgment : 19.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the charge-sheet, is that on 11.07.11, at about 6.45 PM, the accused had obstructed and assaulted HC Randheer Singh, a public servant, in discharge of official duties and as a result of the assault, the said police official had sustained simple injuries. Based on the complaint of HC Randheer, the FIR was registered and investigative machinery set rolling.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 27.06.2012. Based on the investigation done, accused Pawan was arraigned for the offences under Sections 186/353/332 IPC. The cognizance of the offences was taken on 08.00.2012 and the accused Pawan was summoned. The accused appeared before the Court on 20.11.2012 and the chargesheet was supplied to him on that day. Thereafter, notice was framed against him on 10.04.2013 for offences U/s 186/353/332 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It was contended by the accused that he had been falsely implicated in the matter. It was further urged that the entire case suffered from serious investigative lapses.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 2 of 21
3. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 09 witnesses namely Retired SI Rajender Singh; W/Ct. Rashmi; HC Randheer Singh; Ct. Satender; ASI Tikam Singh; Inspector Anand Singh; HC Gulab; Retired SI Ranjeet Singh; and HC Ramji Lal.
4. Their testimonies in brief are reproduced herein under:
a. Retired SI Rajender Singh stated that on 11.07.2011, he was posted at PS DBG Road as Duty Officer and at about 11:35 PM, he had received a rukka through Ct. Satender. The same had been sent by HC Ranjeet Singh and based on the same, the FIR was registered. The original FIR was marked Ex.PW1/A and endorsement thereon was Ex.PW1/B. In his cross- examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he denied the suggestion that he had not received any rukka and that the FIR was ante-timed and ante-dated. He denied the suggestion that the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case and that he was deposing falsely. b. PW 2 W/Ct. Rashmi deposed that on 11.07.2011, she was posted at PS DBG Road and was working as DD Writer from 08.00 AM to 04.00 PM. She had made the departure entry regarding some police officials proceeding on patrolling in the area under PS DBG Road (vide entry no.27-B, which was Ex.PW2/A (OSR). The said entry included the name of HC Randheer.
She was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
c. PW 2 HC Randhir Singh deposed that on 11.07.2011, he was STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 3 of 21 posted at PS DBG Road and was on evening patrolling duty. At about 06:45 PM, he had reached near the Primary School, when he noticed one motorcycle (make Honda bearing No. DL7SC- 7301) of red colour parked outside the school. He stated that he went inside the said school and met the Chowkidar Sh. Nain Singh. The latter on enquiry told him that the said motorcycle had been standing there for quite a long time. He deposed that he then went to the Lal Park situated in front of the said school, where he found the accused Pawan. On enquiry, the accused denied having any links with the motorcycle. The witness stated that he again went to the Chowkidar Sh. Nain Singh and with his help, he tried to tow away the unclaimed motorcycle on a rickshaw. In the meantime, the accused Pawan came there, held his uniform collar and tore his uniform. He added that the accused also hit him on his head and as a result, the witness sustained injury on the forehead and he started bleeding. He added that in the meantime, HC Gulab, HC Tikam and Ct.
Satender also reached there and the former two police officials, apprehended the accused Pawan. He stated that public had gathered at the spot. He added that he was then taken to the Jeewan Mala Hospital. He correctly identified the accused.
In his cross- examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that on the day of incident he was on 24 hours duty. He added that he was on duty alongwith HC Tikam Singh and Ct. Gulab. He stated that these police officials were with him at the time of the incident. He stated that he had made inquiries STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 4 of 21 about the motorcycle and at that time, HC Tikam Singh and Ct. Gulab were with him. However, they didn't make enquiries themselves. He denied the suggestion that HC Tikam Singh and Ct. Gulab were not with him. He denied the suggestion that there was no bike standing at the spot. He added that the Chowkidar had not told him since when the bike was standing at the spot. He denied the suggestion that the Chowkidar did not disclose the same as there was no bike standing over there. He added that when he first went to the park, the accused met him in the park and at that time, no other person was present in the park. He added that he had inquired about the bike from the accused and the accused had only told him that he was waiting for his friends in the park. He didn't remember the exact time when the motorcycle was being towed away on a rickshaw. He added that the rickshaw puller had gone away from the spot on seeing the ensuing scuffle. He added that HC Tikam and Ct. Gulab were at a distance of 10-15 steps from the place of incident and when they saw the accused assaulting him, they tried to shield him. He added that he was taken to the Jeewan Mala Hospital by Ct. Satender and at that time, HC Tikam and Ct. Gulab had remained at the spot. He stated that his statement was recorded in the hospital and prior to that, no other statement of his was recorded. He added that he had gone to the PS from the hospital but couldn't remember the exact time when he reached the PS. He added that he again joined the investigation on reaching the PS. He added that he had handed over his uniform to the IO after STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 5 of 21 reaching the PS. He added that HC Tikam and Ct. Gulab were also present when he handed over his uniform to the IO. He didn't remember the time when he handed over his uniform to the IO. He denied the suggestion that he did not remember the same as nothing was handed over to the IO. He denied the suggestion that no such incident had happened and that he was deposing falsely.
d. PW Ct. Satender deposed that on 11.07.2011, he was posted at PS DBG Road and was on duty from 9.00 am to 9.00 pm. He added that at about 06.45 pm, a person met him and informed him that a quarrel was going on in the nearby area and someone was assaulting a police official. On hearing this, he rushed to the spot, where HC Tikam and Ct. Gulab met him on the way. He added that on reaching the spot, he found HC Randhir in an injured condition and blood was oozing from his forehead. He identified the accused Pawan as the assailant who was apprehended by HC Randheer. He added that he then took HC Randheer to Jeewan Mala Hospital and after sometime, HC Ranjeet came there and gave him a tehrir for registration of FIR. He added that he then went to the PS and after getting the FIR registered, he handed over the copy of FIR to SI Anand. He added that he then went to the hospital. He added that from the hospital, after discharge, HC Randheer went to the spot, where the IO prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Randheer. He deposed that after interrogation, the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A and personal search was conducted vide STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 6 of 21 memo Ex. PW4/B. He stated that even a motorcycle was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/C and the torn uniform of HC Randheer was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/D. He added that the IO had recorded his statement then. He identified the case property (torn uniform with name plate).
In his cross- examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that he had made DD entry for his departure but he did not remember its number. He added that HC Jaipal was with him. He added that when he was present near the roundabout, he had received information regarding a quarrel and he reached the spot, within five to seven minutes. He didn't know the name of the person who had informed him about the assault. He admitted that he had not personally seen the accused attack HC Randheer. He stated that many public persons were present at the spot when he reached there and added that he had not personally requested any person to join the proceedings. He added that HC Randheer was taken to the hospital on a rickshaw and it took five to ten minutes to reach at the hospital. He added that he immediately left the spot with HC Randheer. He added that HC Randheer was discharged from the hospital after about one and half an hour and the statement of HC Randhir was recorded in his presence at the hospital. He added that after receiving the rukka, he went to the Police Station. He couldn't recall whether the accused had also sustained injuries or not. He added that he had not taken the accused for medical examination. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 7 of 21 the present case and was lifted from the road by the police while he was going home. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigative proceedings. He added that the roundabout was about 200 to 400 metres away from the place of incident and he had met HC Tikam and Ct. Gulab, around 100 to 200 metres from the roundabout.
e. PW ASI Tikam Singh deposed that on 11.07.2011, he was posted at PS DBG Road as a Head Constable and on that day, he alongwith Ct. Gulab were on patrolling duty near Sai Baba Mandir. At about 6.40 PM, a person informed them about a quarrel near the MCD Primary School and on reaching there, they found HC Randheer, in an injured condition. Blood was oozing from his forehead. He added that HC Randheer was admitted to the hospital by Ct. Satender and it was then that they came to know that HC Randheer had been beaten up by the accused Pawan. He added that accused Pawan was also present there and had been apprehended by the public. He added that a motorcycle bearing registration number DL-6ST-7301 was also found there and was confiscated by the Police. He added that the IO had recorded his statement.
In his cross- examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that his duty hours were from 4.00 PM to 10.00 PM on the day of the incident and that the place of incident was about 20-25 metres away from Sai Baba Mandir. He admitted that he was not the eye witness to the incident and STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 8 of 21 that he had been informed by the complainant about the same. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. f. PW Inspector Anand Singh deposed that on 11.07.2011, he was posted at PS DBG Road as SI and on that day, the further investigation of the present case was marked to him by the then Duty Officer PS DBG Road. He added that he had gone to the spot i.e. Primary School, Dev Nagar and on reaching the spot, he met the first IO HC Ranjeet, who handed over the documents pertaining to the present case. He added that custody of accused was also handed over to him. He added that he had then prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Randheer which is marked Ex. PW6/A. he added that he had seized the torn uniform of HC Randheer vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/D and had also seized the motorcycle bearing No. DL6ST7301 vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/C. He added that he had gotten the accused medically examined and the accused was found to have consumed alcohol. He stated that he had arrested the accused Pawan vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A and the personal search of the accused was conducted by him. He added that then the accused and case property was taken to the PS, where the case property was deposited in the malkhana. The accused was then sent for medical examination and thereafter, to judicial custody. He added that he had then recorded the statement of witnesses and obtained the copies of DD No. 35 A and DD No. 27 B, both dt. 11.07.2011. He added that the certified copies of the same are already on judicial record and marked Ex. PW6/B and Ex. STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 9 of 21 PW6/C. He had taken the necessary prosecution sanction which was marked Ex. PW6/D. he stated that he had prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the Court. He identified the torn uniform marked Ex. P-1; seized motorcycle; and the accused.
In his cross- examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that after reaching the spot, he met HC Randheer Singh, HC Ranjeet and HC Tikam Singh. After completion of investigation at the spot, he went to the PS and stated that accused was arrested at the PS. He added that the accused was medically examined before this arrest and he added that he first saw accused in presence of Ct. Gulab Singh, who had brought him there. He denied the suggestion that no investigation was done by him at the spot and that he was deposing falsely.
g. PW HC Gulab Singh deposed that on 11.07.2011, he was posted as a Constable at PS DBG Road and on that day, he was on patrolling duty alongwith HC Tikam at Beat No.1. While patrolling at about 6:40 pm, near Sai Mandir, a public person informed them about a quarrel in the nearby area where someone was assaulting a police official (near MCD primary school). He added that they went towards the place of incident and enroute, Ct. Satender also met them. He added that when he reached near the place, he saw HC Randheer catching hold of a person with the help of public persons and blood was oozing out from the forehead of HC Randheer. He added that Ct. Satender then took STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 10 of 21 HC Randheer to the hospital. He added that he had taken the accused to Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital and added that after the medical examination, the accused was brought back to the PS, where HC Randheer was also present alongwith IO SI Anand Singh. He added that the IO had then seized the uniform and name plate of Delhi police from HC Randheer in his presence vide memo Ex. PW4/D. he added that the IO had also seized the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL6ST7301 vide memo Ex. PW4/C. He added that the IO had also personally searched the accused vide memo already Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B. He added that the IO had also recorded his statement. He correctly identified the case property and the accused.
In his cross examination, he deposed that the evening patrolling duty was from 5:00 pm to 10:00 pm. He added that they were patrolling on foot alongwith Ct. Satender. He added that the place of incident was about 5-7 minutes from the place of occurrence. He admitted that he had not seen the accused quarrelling with HC Randheer and he did not know the name of the public person who had informed him about the quarrel. He also didn't recall how Ct. Satender took HC Randheer to the hospital. He added that he had taken the accused in an auto rickshaw and reached the hospital at about 1:40 a.m. He added that he alongwith HC Tikam and accused had remained at the spot for about 2-3 hours and the IO had reached there after about half an hour. He added that HC Randheer had STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 11 of 21 left for the hospital alongwith Ct. Satender. He added that the IO had conducted the investigation at the spot as well. He added that IO had not recorded his statement or that of the accused at the spot or prepared the site plan. He added that IO had not recorded the statement of HC Tikam or any public person in his presence. He added that the seizure of uniform and motorcycle was made at the PS at about 2:00 to 2:15 am. He added that the medical examination of the accused was conducted within 10 minutes. He added that the motorcycle was not brought to the PS by him and that he had first seen the motorcycle at the spot. He added that the motorcycle belonged to the accused Pawan and the same was conveyed to him by HC Randheer. He added that HC Randheer had told him that the accused started quarrelling with him and assaulted him. He did not know the reason of the quarrel as it was not conveyed to him by HC Randhir. He denied the suggestion that he had not visited the spot or that he had not joined the proceedings of the present case. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
h. PW Retired SI Ranjeet Singh deposed that on 11.07.2011, DD No. 35 A was received by him and thereafter, he went to Jeewan Mala hospital where HC Randheer Singh was present and was under treatment. He enquired from him after receiving the MLC and recorded his statement Ex. PW8/A. He had prepared the rukka Ex. PW8/B and given it to Ct. Satender for registration of FIR. He was thereafter, relieved from the investigation of the present case.
STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 12 of 21 He was not cross- examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel. i. PW HC Ramji Lal deposed that he was posted as MHCM at PS DBG Road on day of the incident and entry with respect to the case property of the present case was made at S. No. 1620 dt. 12.07.2011 by IO SI Anand Singh, which was marked Ex. PW9/A (colly).
In his cross- examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that he didn't not have any personal knowledge about the incident or about the entry.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
5. Recording of Prosecution Evidence was closed on 12.02.2026 and matter was listed for recording of statement of the accused. The same came to be recorded on 12.02.2026. Accused denied the allegations in toto and said that he had been falsely implicated in the matter. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. No suggestion of prior enmity or motive for false implication has been substantiated.
6. Matter was accordingly, listed for final arguments, which came to be advanced on 18.02.2026. Matter was then listed for pronouncement of judgment.
ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION
7. The main issues that arise for consideration are:
a. Whether the accused had on 11.07.2011, obstructed a public servant namely HC Randheer Singh (No. 1058/C) in the discharge of his public functions, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 186 IPC?
b. Whether the accused had on 11.07.2011 while thus obstructing STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 13 of 21 the aforesaid public servant HC Randheer Singh in discharge of his official duty, assaulted or used criminal force upon the aforesaid official, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 353 IPC?
c. Whether the accused had on 11.07.2011 while thus obstructing the aforesaid public servant HC Randheer Singh voluntarily caused simple hurt to him, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 332 IPC?
ANALYSIS & APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
8. The present case concerns an incident which, though seemingly arising from a routine act of police patrolling and regulation and discharge of police duty in public areas, assumes grave significance in the context of rule of law. At its core lies a simple yet vital question: whether a citizen, aggrieved by the towing of his vehicle from a public place, can take law into his own hands and assault a police official who was discharging his lawful duty.
9. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.07.2011, at about 06.45 PM, HC Randheer, was on patrolling duty with his colleagues, near MCD Primary School, Dev Nagar, Delhi, when he noticed a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL7SC7301, parked there for a long time. The said bike seemed unclaimed and hence, he attempted to tow it away. It was then that the accused assaulted him.
10. In accordance with established procedure, HC Randheer was attempting to tow the vehicle parked outside a school for long. He had made inquiries from the accused too, as to whether the bike was his. When the latter feigned ignorance, HC Randheer took STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 14 of 21 measures to tow it away. At that juncture, the accused Pawan arrived at the spot. Instead of complying with the lawful action of the police, the accused allegedly became aggressive, abused HC Randheer in filthy language, and physically assaulted him. It is further alleged that the accused attempted to prevent the towing of his motorcycle and obstructed official duty.
11. On receipt of information, additional police personnel reached the spot. The accused was apprehended. HC Randheer was medically examined, and his MLC records simple injuries consistent with physical assault. HC Randheer has deposed in a cogent and consistent manner. He also identified the accused in court and narrated the incident in clear terms. He stated that when the towing process commenced, the accused became enraged, pushed him, caught hold of his uniform collar, tore the uniform, and caused minor injuries to him. The testimony of HC Randheer withstood cross-examination. Nothing material could be elicited to discredit his version. Minor discrepancies regarding the exact sequence of blows or precise time are natural and do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case.
12. Even the other police witnesses have corroborated the claims of HC Randheer. In the appraisal of oral evidence, the court distinguishes between the kernel of the story and its husk. In the present matter, while the victim police official provided the primary account, the other police witnesses have provided a remarkably coherent and synchronous version of the assault. Their testimonies regarding the sequence of events, the presence of the accused at the STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 15 of 21 spot, and the specific overt acts of violence align seamlessly. They have clearly articulated how they became aware of the assault, thereby establishing their presence as natural witnesses to the aftermath and the struggle. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the testimony of witnesses cannot be expected to be a photographic copy of the event. Human memory is not a video recorder, and variations in detail are often the hallmark of a truthful witness rather than a tutored one.
13. The defense has tried to point towards certain inconsistencies, specifically: the mode of hospitalization i.e. whether the victim was taken in a private vehicle, a PCR van, or walked to the hospital; the exact time and manner in which the site plan was sketched or the specific spot where the IO sat to record it; who all accompanied the victim police official to the hospital and then to the PS etc. These are ancillary details that do not touch upon the corpus delicti (the body of the crime). Whether the victim reached the hospital in five minutes or ten, or by jeep or bike, does not negate the medical reality of the injuries sustained during the assault. The courts are mandated to sift the grain from the chaff. If the core of the testimony is found to be reliable, the entire evidence cannot be discarded simply because there are minor contradictions on peripheral matters.
14. Further, there is no legal presumption that police witnesses are untrustworthy. As long as their account of the actual assault is consistent, minor errors in post-incident procedural steps (like the site plan) are considered mere investigational lapses that do not STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 16 of 21 strike at the root of the case. Further, the maxim " Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything) has no central application in Indian law. Even if a witness is slightly inaccurate regarding a procedural detail, their testimony regarding the assault itself remains admissible and potent. The minor variations highlighted by the defense are the natural results of the passage of time and the differing perspectives of various officers during a chaotic incident. Since the account of the assault remains unshaken and corroborated by the surrounding police witnesses, the case stands on firm legal ground. The minor inconsistencies regarding the hospital transit or the site plan preparation are insufficient to demolish the otherwise robust edifice of the prosecution's case.
15. It would have been better had an independent passerby, corroborated the incident. However, the non- examination of public witness is not always fatal to the prosecution's case, especially when the medical evidence corroborates the version of the victim himself. The MLC of HC Randheer Singh notes several injuries and abrasions. The injuries are opined to be simple and blunt in nature. Though simple, they corroborate the factum of assault.
16. The Investigating Officer proved the registration of FIR, preparation of site plan, seizure memos, and arrest memo. The defence has not been able to demonstrate any material illegality or bias in the investigation.
17. It is a settled principle that testimony of an injured witness carries great evidentiary value. An injured witness seldom spares STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 17 of 21 the actual culprit and implicates an innocent person. The presence of HC Randheer at the scene is undisputed; he was on official duty. His injury is medically corroborated. The defence argument that the injuries are minor and therefore the assault is exaggerated does not merit acceptance. The law does not measure criminality by the gravity of injury alone. Even a simple injury caused to a public servant in the discharge of his duty constitutes an offence under Section 332 IPC.
18. It has also come on record that an independent eye-witness to the incident, namely Chowkidar Nain Singh, who was cited in the charge-sheet, expired during the pendency of trial and could not be examined before this Court. The prosecution has placed on record his death certificate, and his name accordingly stands dropped from the list of witnesses. Undoubtedly, had the said witness been examined, his testimony might have lent greater independent assurance and credibility to the prosecution version, particularly as he was a public person present at the spot when the incident of assault upon the police official occurred. An independent civilian account often fortifies the narrative of official witnesses and dispels allegations of exaggeration or false implication. However, the non- examination of the said witness on account of his demise cannot, by itself, be construed as fatal to the prosecution case. It is trite law that quality of evidence prevails over quantity. Conviction can be sustained even on the testimony of official witnesses, provided their evidence is cogent, trustworthy and inspires confidence.
19. In the present matter, the testimony of the injured police STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 18 of 21 official has remained consistent and unshaken in material particulars. His presence at the spot is admitted, as he was on official duty for towing vehicles parked in violation of traffic rules. His account of the accused becoming aggressive, obstructing the towing process, and physically assaulting him stands corroborated by the testimonies of accompanying police personnel. Significantly, the medical evidence lends objective support to the oral version. The MLC of the injured police official records simple blunt injuries consistent with the manner of assault described by him. There is no suggestion that the injuries were self-inflicted or fabricated. Medical documentation, being contemporaneous in nature, provides intrinsic reliability and corroborates the prosecution narrative.
20. The defence has not been able to demonstrate any animus or prior enmity between the accused and the police officials that would prompt false implication. Mere suggestion of official bias, without substantive foundation, cannot outweigh sworn testimony corroborated by medical records. Thus, although the demise of the independent eye-witness is indeed unfortunate and his evidence might have further strengthened the prosecution case, the absence of his testimony does not create a vacuum so as to render the existing evidence insufficient. The consistent and credible depositions of the police officials, coupled with unimpeached medical documents, form a coherent and reliable chain establishing the incident of assault beyond reasonable doubt.
21. Accordingly, this Court finds that even in the absence of the said eye-witness, the prosecution has successfully proved its STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 19 of 21 case on the strength of trustworthy official testimony duly supported by medical evidence.
22. Section 186 IPC penalizes voluntary obstruction of a public servant in discharge of public functions. Section 353 IPC addresses assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty. Section 332 IPC further criminalizes voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from duty.
23. In the present case, the prosecution has established: a) That PW-1 was a public servant on official traffic duty; b) That the accused's motorcycle was parked in a no-parking area; c) That towing was being undertaken lawfully; d) That the accused voluntarily obstructed the process; and e) That he assaulted and caused simple hurt to PW-1. Lawful action by police in enforcing rules cannot be construed as provocation justifying violence. In a civilised society governed by rule of law, grievance against official action must be ventilated through legal remedies, not through fists and force. If citizens begin to assault police officials for performing statutory duties, the very foundation of public order would crumble. The argument that the accused acted in a moment of anger does not absolve him. Anger does not confer immunity from criminal liability. On the contrary, it reveals a disregard for lawful authority. Respect for lawful authority is not a matter of convenience; it is the lifeblood of democratic order. Police regulations are not ornamental signboards but instruments of public safety. The duty of a constable, though routine and often thankless, is integral to maintaining discipline on crowded roads. The act of the accused in manhandling STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 20 of 21 a police official for towing a vehicle parked in violation of rules strikes at the dignity of uniformed service and cannot be condoned.
CONCLUSION:
24. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is held that the Prosecution been able to bring home the allegations against the Accused Pawan, beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, Accused Pawan is convicted for the offences under 186/353/332 IPC. This Court holds that the accused Pawan voluntarily obstructed and assaulted HC Randheer Singh, a public servant, while he was discharging his lawful duty of patrolling areas, and caused him simple hurt.
25. Copy of this judgment, pronounced and dictated in open court today, be provided to the Convict free of cost.
Digitally signed by HARSHITA HARSHITA MISHRA Date: MISHRA 2026.02.19 17:02:58 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (HARSHITA MISHRA) COURT ON 19.02.2026 CJM (CENTRAL)/DELHI Digitally signed by HARSHITA Containing 21 pages all signed by the presiding officer. HARSHITA MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.02.19 17:03:03 +0530 (HARSHITA MISHRA) CJM (CENTRAL)/DELHI STATE Vs PAWAN CR. CASE NO. 293166/2016 FIR NO. 142/2011 PS: DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD U/SECTION: 186/353/332 IPC Page 21 of 21