Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/527963/2016 on 27 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITU RAJ
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
TITLE: : State v. Mohd. Latif & Ors.
FIR NO. : 1614/06
P.S. : Sultanpuri
RNO. : 5279632016
Unique ID No. : 02404R0364442009
Date of institution : 28.10.2009
Date of commission of offence : 09.10.2006
Name of Informant/complainant : Kishan Chand
Name of accused : Mohd. Latif
: Satish (already convicted vide order dated
21.11.2012 u/s 353/186/332/506 IPC)
Offence/s complained of :186/353/332/506/34 IPC
Cognizance under section/s :186/353/332/506/34 IPC
Chages framed under section/s :186/353/332/506/34 IPC
Plea of the Accused : Not guilty
Final Order : Acquittal
Date of pronouncement : 27.02.2020
For the Prosecution : Ld. APP
For the Defence : Ld. LAC, Sh. Yogesh Kumar
Present : Pritu Raj
M.M. 01,
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 1 of 15
JUDGEMENT
1. The accused persons are facing trial for offences u/s u/s 186/353/332/506/ 34 IPC.
2. Stated succinctly, the facts germane for the case are on 09.10.2006 at about 12:00 noon at near jhuggi locality of P1 Block, near ganda nala, thana road, Sultanpuri, Delhi Mohd. Latif alongwith coaccused namely Satish, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily obstructed the employees of MCD, Malaria Department, at F3 Block, Sultanpuri, Delhi namely complainant Kishan Chand, Suresh Kumar and Kanhaiya Lal while they were discharging their official function being public servants and used criminal force upon the said employees of MCD to deter them from discharging their official function and caused injuries to the complainant i.e. Kishan Chand while he was discharging his official duties alongwith his said associates and gave threat to the complainant Kishan Chand for facing dire consequences.
3. On the written application of the informant, Sultanpuri P.S. registered in relation to the above incident as FIR no. 1614/06 on 09102006 and, after investigation, submitted the charge sheet on 28102009 against the aforementioned accused persons 186/353/332/506/34 IPC. Cognisance was taken vide. order dated 28102009.
4. Charges u/s 186/353/332/506/34 IPC were framed and read over to all four accused, in Hindi, on 18102010 to which they denied the incident and claimed to be tried.
FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 2 of 15
5. The prosecution, in order to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, examined eleven witnesses in support of its case during the course of trial.
6. PW1/ Kishan Chand deposed that on 09.10.2006 while posted in MCD, Malaria Department situated at F3 Block, Sultan Puri, Delhi he alongwith his other companions Suresh Kumar and Kanhaiya Lal were on field work duty and checking cooler and water tanks at P1 Block, Sultan Puri, Delhi. At about 12:00 noon, Mohd. Latif alongwith another person came and started beating him. He deposed that Mohd. Latif asked him as to why he has issued challan against him to which he replied that he has not issued a Challan against the complainant as it is not in his authority to issue challan. Despite that Mohd. Latif kept on beating him and gave abuses to him. Somehow they managed to escape from the accused and went to their office at F3 Block, Sultan Puri, Delhi and narrated the whole incident to their senior officials. Thereafter their senior official called at 100 number on which police officials came and took him to SGM Hospital for medical examination. He sustained injuries on his left ear the accused had slapped him on his face and gave fist blows to him on his body. Thereafter his statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded and IO prepared site plan Ex. PW1/B at his instance. IO recorded his statement and he gave photocopy of his duty slip and duty ICard to IO. He also proved photocopy of his attendance register and duty slip as Mark A, B, C and D. He proved his Icard as Ex.PW1/C. The witness correctly identified Mohd. Latif while deposing in the Court.
7. PW2 Kanhaiya Lal deposed that on 09.10.2006 while posted in MCD, Malaria Department situated at F3 Block, Sultan Puri, Delhi he alongwith his other companions Suresh Kumar and Kishan Chand were on field work duty and checking cooler and water tanks at P1 Block, Sultan Puri, Delhi and at about 12:00 noon, FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 3 of 15 Mohd. Latif alongwith coaccused Satish came and started beating Kishan Chand. Mohd. Latif asked him as to why he has issued challan against him to which Kishan Chand replied that he has not issued a Challan against him as it is not in his authority to issue challan. Despite that the accused kept on beating him and gave abuses to him. Somehow they managed to escape and went to their office at F3 Block, Sultan Puri, Delhi and narrated the whole incident to their senior officials. Thereafter, their senior official called at 100 number after which police officials recorded his statement.
8. PW3 HC Devender Singh deposed that on 09.10.2006, while posted as Duty officer from 04.00 PM to 12:00 midnight, he received rukka through HC Bhram Swaroop at about 04:10 PM and on the basis of same, he registered the present FIR 1614/2006 u/s 353/186/332/506/34 IPC Ex. PW3/A and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Praduman Singh for further investigation as per the order of SHO PS Sultan Puri.
9. PW4 HC Bharam Swaroop deposed that on 09.10.2016 while posted as HC at PS Sultan Puri at about 01/ 01.10 PM, DD No.51B as Ex. PW4/A was received by him and thereafter he alongwith Ct. Satbir Singh reached at the place of occurrence i.e P1 Block, near Ganda Nala, Thana Road, Sultanpuri, Delhi where the complainant was not found present there so he returned to the PS and at 02:30 PM, complainant Kishan Chand alongwith two other public persons namely Suresh and Kanhaiya came to the PS. Complainant told him that he was employed in MCD and while he was performing his official duty, he was assaulted by Mohd. Latif and co accused Satish. PW4 stated that he had recorded the statement of complainant Kishan Chand as Ex. PW1/A and the same is attested by said witness at point B. He further deposed that thereafter, injured Kishan Chand was got medically examined at SGM hospital. On the basis of statement of complainant, he prepared rukka Ex. PW FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 4 of 15 4/B and handed over the same to DO HC Devender for registration of FIR. As per orders of SHO, PS Sultan Puri the further investigation was marked to ASI Praduman. Thereafter, he accompanied IO ASI Praduman and complainant to the place of occurrence where IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant. His statement u/s 161 Cr.PC was recorded by the IO. He further deposed that on 18.10.2006, he again joined the investigation in the present case and Mohd. Latif alongwith coaccused appeared at the police station where IO formally arrested both of them as they had already obtained anticipatory bail from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Mohd. Latif was arrested vide arrest memo and personal search memo as Ex. PW4/C to Ex. PW4/E. During deposition, both accused were correctly identified by the witness in the Court.
10. PW5 Sh. Suresh Kumar deposed that on 09.10.2006 he was working as Baildar in MCD Sultan Puri. On that day he alongwith Kanhaiya and Krishan Lal were checking the coolers and storing of the water in water tank in P1, Sultan Puri to ensure that the mosquitoes were not breeding in the stored water and at about 11:00 AM to 12:00 noon, two persons namely Latif Khan and Satish came and interrupted in their work. Both of them started quarreling with them and manhandled with Krishan Chand. Then they stopped their checking work and went to their office. Then they informed their senior official. A complaint was made to police by Krishan Chand. Police official met him and recorded his statement. They were not challaning any errant persons for negligence in storing water.
11. PW6 SI Gulshan Gupta deposed that on 05.03.2008 while posted as SI at PS Sutlan Puri, he received investigation of the present case on the direction of SHO and the case file of the present case was in his custody from 05.03.2008 to 08.06.2009. During that period, he pursue the investigation of the present case and collected some FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 5 of 15 documents from Jagdish Solanki, Malaria Inspector marked as MarkA and MarkB, after which he prepared seizure memo of above said documents which is Ex. PW6/A and after that he recorded the statement of Malaria Inspector Jagdish Solanki u/s 161 Cr.PC. He also made request to Dy. Commissioner, MCD, Najafgarh to file the complaint u/s 195 Cr. P.C and proved the request letter as Ex. PW6/B. He also deposed that he filed the complaint u/s 195 Cr. P.C before Ld. ACMM Court on 10.05.2009 and proved the forwarding letter of the complaint as Ex. PW6/C.
12. PW7 Retired SI Parduman Kumar deposed that on 09.10.2006, while posted as an ASI at PS Sultan Puri, after registration of FIR, investigation of the present case was entrusted to him and he collected the FIR and original rukka from Duty Officer. The complainant was also present at the PS at that time. After receiving the FIR, he alongwith the complainant reached at the spot i.e. P1 Block, Sultan Puri and he prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/B at the instance of the complainant and recorded supplementary statement of the complainant and returned at the PS where he recorded the statement of HC Bharam Swaroop u/s 161 Cr. P.C, though he failed to remember the date of arrest due to lapse of time and he arrested and personally searched Mohd. Latif vide memo Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW4/E. Witness correctly identified Mohd. Latif during deposition in the Court.
13. PW8 ASI Satbir deposed that on 09.10.2006, while posted as Constable at PS Sultan Puri at about 1/1:10 PM, DD No. 51B, the true copy of which is already proved as Ex. PW4/A was received by HC Brahm Swaroop and thereafter, he alongwith HC Brahm Swaroop reached at the place of occurrence i.e. P1 Block, near Ganda Nala, Thana Road, Sultan Puri, Delhi where complainant was not found present and even no other person was present there, so they returned to the PS and at about 02:30 PM, complainant Kishan Chand alongwith two other public persons FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 6 of 15 namely Suresh and Kanhaiya came to the PS. Complainant told to IO that he was employed in MCD and while he was performing his official duty, he was assaulted by one Mohd. Latif and Satish. IO had recorded the statement of complainant Kishan Chand and he was medically examined at SGM hospital by him and HC Brahm Swaroop and on the basis of the statement of the complainant, he prepared the rukka and FIR was registered in this case. As per orders of SHO PS Sultan Puri, the further investigation was marked to ASI Parduman. Thereafter, he along with HC Brahm Swaroop, IO ASI Parduman Singh and complainant went to the place of occurrence where IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant. Statement of witness was recorded by IO.
14. PW9 Jagdish Singh Solanki deposed that he was posted as Malaria Inspector at S. Puri in MCD Zone, Rohini since 2006 and he retired from said post from S. Puri in the year 2015. He further stated that on 09.10.2006, he handed over photocopy of challan to the police official which was seized by the police official vide memo already proved as Ex. PW6/A. He further deposed that the said challan was cut by him as the accused Mohd. Latif was having breading of Aedis mosquitos in bird water container which was lying at his house. The officials of their department namely Kishan Chand, Suresh Kumar and Kanhaiya Lal reported to him that a quarrel took place with them by Mohd. Latif and coaccused Satish and the same matter was reported by them to me as well as senior officers.
15. PW10 was a summoned witness who brought the original record of MLC No. 15517 pertaining to Kishan Chand and the same was marked as Ex. PW10/A.
16. PW11 deposed that he was posted at PS Sultanpuri as SI ON 11082007. He state that on that date, the investigation of the case was marked to him and during the FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 7 of 15 course of investigation, he recorded the statement of Kanhaiya Lal. He stated that he was transferred from PS Sultanpuri to Rohini and he handed over the file to MHC(R).
17. Evidence on behalf of the prosecution was closed vide order dated 29082017 and the matter was fixed for SA. The accused persons were duly examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 23042018 wherein they chose to lead DE.
18. Mohd. Latif was examined as DW1 and he stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case as he had filed a complaint against MCD officials and state through Commissioner of police, ITO vide writ petition no. 13168/2005. He placed on record certified copy of SLP no. 106222/10, Ex. DW1/A and writ petition no. 13168/2005 EX. DW1/B.
19. DE was closed vide order dated 02022019. The matter was fixed for Judgement vide order dated 21012020.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
20. The accused in the present case has been charged for offences under section 186/353/332/506/ 34 IPC.
For the sake of brevity, it would be prudent to reproduce the same:
186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions.--Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 8 of 15 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 in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
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 serv ant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descrip tion for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 9 of 15 to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Proof under section 186/332/353 I.P.C.:
21. The common thread running through these sections is that the obstruction/assault/hurt so caused have to be allegedly inflicted on a public servant. Therefore it be prudent to examine the evidence led by the prosecution, collectively, with regard to the offences u/s 186, 332, 353 IPC.
22. Further, the common ingredient which is required to be proved for a successful proof of guilt under the aforementioned sections is the proof of assault by the accused upon the victim/complainant. This court shall now proceed to examine the evidence led by the prosection in reference to the same.
23. It has been alleged by the victim that the complainant had been assaulted by the accused no. 1 while he was on field work duty and were checking cooler and water tanks at P1 bock, Sultanpuri. In order to support the said claim, the prosecution has examined a total of eleven witnesses three witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW5 who were the eyewitnesses, PW 3 Devender Singh as duty officer, PW 4 FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 10 of 15 HC Brahm Swaroop, PW6 SI Gulshan Gupta (who recollected certain documents from Jagdish Solanki), PW7 Retd. SI Parduman Kumar (IO in the case), PW 8 ASI Satbir, PW9 Jagdish Singh Solanki (Retd. Malaria Inspector), PW 10 Naveen, Record Clerk, PW11 (Inspector Rajesh). Going through the testimonies rendered by the eye witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, the following observations emerge:
a. While PW1 has stated that the accused assaulted only him because the said PW had issued a challan against him, PW2 has stated that he was also assaulted by the accused. PW3, on the other hand, has stated that the accused quarrelled with all three persons i.e. PW1. PW2 and PW5.
b. While PW 1 has stated in his examination in chief that the siteplan had been made by the I.O. exhibited as PW1/B at his instance, he deposed in his crossexamination that he does not remember whether the siteplan was prepared in his presence or not. Furthermore, PW4 has stated in his crossexamination that the siteplan was prepared by the IO in presence of ASI Parduman Singh and the complainant. It is pertinent to note that PW8 has deposed that sitemap of the alleged incident was prepared by I.O. in the presence of him (ASI Satbir, HC Brahm Swaroop and the complainant. PW Parduman Singh has stated in his crossexamination that the site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant, however his signatures were not taken at the spot when it was made.
c. PW 1 has stated in his examination in chief that numerous people gathered at the place of incident after the incident had happened, whereas PW Retd. SI Parduman Singh has stated in his cross that upon his enquiry at the spot from nearby people, the incident was denied and noone had any knowledge about the occurrence of the said FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 11 of 15 incident. Moreover, no such person as claimed by PW1, was made a witness in order to assuage the claim of the prosecution.
d. PW 1 has stated in his examination in chief that that he escaped from the alleged assault by the accused persons and informed his senior officers who made a call to the police authorities whereas he has stated in his crossexamination that he himself made a call to the police authorities on the directions of his senior authorities. On the other hand PW2 has stated in his examination in chief that the call to police authorities was made by the senior authorities. Furthermore, PW9 SH. Jagdish Kr. Solanki who was the senior of the complainant/victims have stated that he did not make any call to the police authorities after the incident was narrated to him.
24. It is a settled principle of criminal law the guilt/innocence of the accused person/s is to be determined with respect to the evidentiary value of witnesses adduced y the prosecution. The burden on the prosecution in such cases is strict and the burden must be discharged beyond all reasonable doubt in order to hold an accused responsible under criminal law. One of the guiding principles in order to determine the credibility and veracity of a witness is that the testimony of a witness be coherent and not suffer from material contradictions.
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Govindaraju v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 SCC 315, explaining the above principle has held as under, "It is well settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude so as to materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements in relation to trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not be made a ground for rejection of FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 12 of 15 evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence available, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses, and the appellate court in the normal course of action, would not be justified in reviewing the same, without providing justifiable reasons for doing so. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other witnesses also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found not to be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, the witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with the other evidence available or with a statement that has already been recorded, then in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."
Similarly, the Hon'ble Court in Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434 has held, "It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. Therefore, unless irrelevant, details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness should be ignored. The court has to examine whether evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken, as to render it unworthy of belief. Thus, the court is not supposed FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 13 of 15 to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. Thus, the court must read the evidence of a witness as a whole, and consider the case in light of the entirety of the circumstances, ignoring the minor discrepancies with respect to trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution. The said discrepancies as mentioned above, should not be taken into consideration, as they cannot form grounds for rejecting the evidence on record as a whole. "
26. A considered view of the above circumstance reveal that there are material contradictions between the versions deposed by witnesses produced by the prosecution in regard to the manner of the incident, preparation of site plan and the occurence of incident. In view of the same, the prosecution has failed to successfully prove the allegations u/s 186/353/332/506/ 34 IPC against the accused person. The accused Mohd. Latif is, accordingly, acquitted of charges u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC.
DETERMINATION WITH REGARD TO S. 506 IPC
27. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons had threatened the complainant with dire consequences and therefore had criminally intimidated him because of the alleged issuance of a challan by the complainant.
28. The deposition of PW1, the complainant, is completely silent on the said aspect. Nothing has come in the entire examinationinchief of the complainant to show that the accused had criminally intimidated him by making any utterance toward the said effect. This fact is infact assuaged in the crossexamination of the complainant when the said fact was brought to his notice and the same was denied by FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 14 of 15 the complainant. The proseuciton has, therefore, failed to prove the allegations under section 506 IPC against the accused. The accused Mohd. Latif is, accordingly, acquitted of charges under section 506 IPC.
29. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court (PRITU RAJ)
on 27th February, 2020. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 15 of 15