Delhi District Court
State vs Gopal Singh on 15 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA ARORA:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04: NORTH-WEST
DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 118/2010
PS Aman Vihar
State Vs. Gopal Singh
Date of Institution: 09.04.2012
Date of Judgment : 15.01.2025.
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 529630/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : 12.04.2010
(c) Name of the complainant : HC Mohd. Abrahim
(d) Name of Accused persons, : (1) Gopal Singh their parentage & residence S/o Sh. Anant Prasad Singh, R/o: Z-465, Prem Nagar-II, Kirari, Delhi.
(2) Sikandar Sharma (abated)
(3) Brijesh Tiwari (abated)
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC
(f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final order : Acquittal
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The case of the prosecution is that on 12.04.2010 at about FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 1 of 17 1.55 pm, at Gali No. 1, Prem Nagar-II, Near House No. Z-465, Delhi, accused Gopal, along with a co-accused Brijesh Tiwari and Sikander Sharma (proceedings against whom have already abated), in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily obstructed PCR officials, namely HC Mohd Ibrahim, Ct Rajender, and ASI Dharamveer, who were discharging their public duties. It is further alleged that the accused used criminal force against the officials, causing simple injuries, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 186, 353, 332 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally, the accused allegedly caused simple injuries to Ved Prakash, attracting charges under Section 323/34 IPC.
2) The complaint was filed by the complainant Ved Prakash Sharma against accused Gopal Singh, Sikandar Sharma and Brijesh Tiwari and on the said complaint present FIR was registered and thereafter, the complaint case was stayed u/s 210 Cr.PC. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in Court and both the cases were tried together as a State case according to Section 210 Cr.PC. The complaint case was annexed to the State case. Cognizance of the offences were taken, the above said accused Gopal Singh, Sikandar Sharma (deceased) and Brijesh Tiwari (deceased) were summoned and after that, accused Gopal and Sikandar Sharma entered appearance, copy of the chargesheet along with the documents was supplied to them in compliance of FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 2 of 17 Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) Charge was then framed against the accused Gopal Singh and Sikandar Sharma (deceased) on 07.06.2013 for the commission of offences under Section 186/353/332/323/34 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses.
During the trial, proceedings against accused Sikandar Sharma stood abated.
5) PW1 Sh. Ved Prakash Sharma deposed that the incident took place about 5-6 years ago, and he is the registered owner of property bearing no. 2, Block-A-15, Prem Nagar-II, Kirari Delhi as he had purchased this property from one person about 7-8 years ago. He had permitted accused Gopal Singh to run an office from the said property. When he asked him to vacate the said property, Gopal said that he will not leave from that property. In this regard Ved Prakash Sharma had filed civil and criminal cases against the accused Gopal. In the civil matter the Ld. Judge at Rohini Courts decided in the favour of Ved Prakash, and ordered accused Gopal to hand over the possession of the said property to him. However Gopal did not vacate the said property and therefore court sent its bailiff to that property. At the said property, the bailiff met the wife of accused Gopal and asked her to vacate the property and showed her the court papers. Exchange of some hot words took place between the wife of accused and FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 3 of 17 the bailiff upon which some public persons also gathered there. He further deposed that he did not know whether his statement was recorded by police or not.
6) PW2 Retd. ASI Mohd. Ibrahim deposed that on 12.04.2010, he was posted as a In-charge at PCR Libra 4-5 At Kirari Chowk and at about 1:44 PM, he received a call through wireless regarding the quarrel at H. No. 465, Gali No.1, Prem Nagar-II, upon which he alongwith staff including Ct. Rajen- der Singh, ASI Dharambir Singh / Driver went to the spot. At the spot, he met caller Ved Prakash Sharma and Davender Kumar Sharma. Caller having papers regarding eviction of the above said house. One person namely Gopal Singh came and started quarrel with Ved Prakash and Davender. At that time ASI Mohd. Ibrahim alongwith staff tried to pacify mat- ter. In the meanwhile 7 to 8 person came and started quarrel and beating police officials. Accused Gopal snatched Lathi of Ct. Rajender. Both the accused persons give beating to the police officials by the same lathi. He sustained injuries on right hand and chin. Ct. Rajender sustained injuries and ac- cused persons torn his police uniform. Driver ASI Dharambir sustained injury on ears and accused person pressed his neck. He further deposed that accused Brijesh and Gopal gave beat- ing to them with the help of the Lathi. Accused Brijesh torn the collar and button of the dress of Ct. Rajender. Due to the quarreling the name plate of Ct. Rajender fell down there. He narrated the whole incident to the libra-1 and tiger 54. Local FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 4 of 17 police came from the PS at the spot alongwith libra-44. Thereafter, ASI Mohd. Ibrahim alongwith Ct. Rajender, Driver ASI Dharvir Singh went to the SGM Hospital for medical treatment. Ct. Rajender Singh, ASI Dharmbir visited PP Prem Nagar. ASI Mohd Ibrahim had given the complaint regarding the incident which is Ex. PW2/A and he narrated the whole incident to the police officials. ASI Chand Singh recorded his statement. ASI Chand Singh sent the rukka through one constable.
7) PW-3 Retd. ASI Dharamvir deposed that on 12.04.2010, he was posted at PCR and was on duty as Driver on PCR Van Libra 45. At about 1.45 pm, one call was received by ASI Mohd. Ibrahim regarding quarrel at Gali No.1, Prem Nagar- II, Kirari, Delhi. Accordingly they went to the spot. ASI Mohd. Ibrahim, Gun man Ct. Rajender got down from the PCR Van and went inside the Gali and he remained in the PCR Van. After sometime, they came back with the mob. Many persons were quarreling with each other. He also tried to intervene the quarrel over there but they did not stop. In the meantime, one person from the mob gave slap on right ear of ASI Dharamvir due to which he got unconscious. The public persons started scuffling with ASI Mohd. Ibrahim, Gun man Ct. Rajender. Later on, they came to know that Court Bailiffs Devender Kumar and Ved Prakash had come to the spot for executing eviction orders passed by Court but accused persons were not ready to evict their premises and FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 5 of 17 they started quarreling and when police reached, the mob gave beatings to them. Local police came at the spot and they took them to hospital.
8) PW-4 Ct. Parshant Kumar deposed that on 12.04.2010, he was posted at PS Aman Vihar as a constable and on that day, he alongwith ASI Chand Singh were performing emergency duty in the PS. DD No. 23 A was entrusted to ASI Chand Singh. He alongwith ASI Chand Singh reached at Z-465, Gali No. 1, Prem Nagar where they found one PCR van L-44 and the police officials and they told them that the police of- ficials of PCR Van L-45 were beaten up and they have sus- tained injuries and they were shifted to the SGM Hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith IO visited hospital where they met HC Mohd. Abrahim and one Ct. Rajender and IO collected their MLC and IO recorded statement of the HC Mohd. Abrahim. IO prepared rukka and the same was handed over to Ct. Prashant Kumar for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he went to the PS to get the FIR registered. After some time, he came back at the spot alongwith the copy of FIR and origi- nal rukka and the same were handed over to the IO. IO pre- pared site plan at the instance of Mohd. Abrahim. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. P. C and relieved him from the investigation.
9) PW-5 Dr. Bhawna Gupta, CMO, Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitam Pura, Delhi deposed that on 12.04.2010, he was posted FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 6 of 17 as CMO at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitam Pura, Delhi and at about 7:50 PM, one patient namely Ved Prakash came to casualty with alleged history of physical assault. He was examined by Dr. Bhawna Gupta and thereafter, he was re- ferred to SR Surgery. His detailed report for the same is in MLC no. 539 which is Ex.PW-5/A.
10) PW-6 Dr. M. Dass, CMO, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, deposed that on 12.04.2010, he was posted as CMO at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi and at about 3:00 PM, one patient namely Rajender Singh came to casu- alty with alleged history of physical assault. Patient was ex- amined by Dr. Raghavendra under the supervision of Dr. M. Das. The detailed report of the said examination is given in MLC No. 5358 which is Ex.PW6/A. Dr. M. Dass has identi- fied the signatures of Dr. Raghavendra as he has worked with him. He identified the signatures of Dr. Raghvendra at point B on MLC Ex.PW-6/A. He also identified the signatures of Dr. Ramesh Kumar Pandey on MLC No. 5229 dated 12.04.2010 of patient Dharambeer which is Ex. PW-6/B at point A. MLC no. 5230 dated 12.04.2010 of patient Mohd. Ibrahim is Ex.PW-6/C bears the signatures of Dr. Ramesh Kumar Pandey at point A.
11) PW-7 ASI Rajender Singh deposed that on 12.04.2010, he was posted at PS Aman Vihar as Constable and on that day, he was on duty at PCR Libra 45 alongwith HC Mohd. FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 7 of 17 Ibrahim and ASI Dharambeer (Driver). At about 1.44 pm, he received a call of 100 number regarding quarrel at 2465 Prem Nagar-II, Gali No. 1, Kirari, Delhi. They went to the spot where he noticed that three persons were abusing and quar- reling with 3-4 other persons. On inquiry one person namely Devender Kumar stated himself as court staff and further stated that he alongwith the owner of the house in question had come there for taking possession of the above mentioned house according to the order of the court and that the accused persons were obstructing them and fighting with them. HC Mohd. Ibrahim requested the accused persons to co-operate with the court staff. However, they did not take pay any heed and in the meantime, some other friends of the accused per- sons arrived at the spot and thereafter, they started fighting with police officials. Accused Gopal hit HC Mohd. Ibrahim with a stick. They also beat ASI Rajender with slaps and also torn his uniform. ASI Dharambeer was also beaten by them with slaps. ASI Dharambeer made a call at 100 number and after some time, PCR Libra 44 reached at the spot. The ac- cused persons ran away from the spot. Thereafter, ASI Rajen- der alongwith HC Mohd. Ibrahim and ASI Dharambeer went to SGM Hospital. After getting the treatment from the hospi- tal they went to the police station where he gave his written statement to the incharge of the PP Prem Nagar. He also identified the accused Gopal in he Court.
FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 8 of 17
12) PW-8 ASI Chand Singh deposed that on 12/04/2010 he was posted as ASI at PP Prem Nagar P.S Aman Vihar Delhi. He received one DD No. 23A which is Ex.PW8/X regarding quarrel and thereafter he alongwith Ct. Prashant went to the spot i.e. near Z-465 Prem Nagar-II where he found PCR van Libra 44 and staff of the said PCR told him that the staff of PCR van Libra 45 got injured in the quarrel and the injured persons had already been shifted to SGM hospital Mangol Puri, Delhi. Thereafter ASI Chand Singh alongwith Ct Prashant went to the SGM Hospital where he collected MLCs of injured HC Ibrahim, Ct Rajender and Driver Dharambir. Thereafter he recorded the statement of HC Ibrahim which is Ex.PW2/A. He prepared the rukka which is Ex.PW8/A and handed over the same to Ct. Prashant for registration of FIR who accordingly went to the PS. ASI Chand alongwith the complainant went to the spot where he prepared site plan Ex.PW8/B. Thereafter he alongwith the complainant went to the PP Prem Nagar. In the meantime Ct Prashant also reached to the PP Prem Nagar and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to him. Thereafter he went to Bhagwan Mahavir Hos- pital after receiving the information of the admission of in- jured Ved Prakash in the said hospital where he collected the MLC of the injured Ved Prakash and recorded statement of injured Ved Prakash. Thereafter accused Gopal was granted anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble Sessions Courts. There- after ASI Chand made efforts for searching the other accused persons. He also obtained the opinion on the MLC of injured FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 9 of 17 Dharambir. He also collected the permission under sec 195 of Cr.PC from ACP (PCR). He also made efforts for got con- ducting the TIP of the accused persons, however all the three accused persons refused to participate in the TIP.
13) PW-9 SI Raj Kumar, Record Keeper at Record Branch, Man-
gol Puri, PCR Delhi was summoned to produce the call regis- ter, Libra 45 of dated 12.04.2010, however the abovesaid record has already been destroyed by the order of Additional DCP, PCR vide order no. 3464-3544/HAR/PCR Delhi dated 13.11.2013 by which the old record from 01.01.2010 to 30.06.2010 was destroyed. He has produced the certified copy of the abovesaid order, the letter sent by Additional DCP PCR to the Director, Zonal Multi Disciplinary Training Center, Khadi and Village Industries Commission and certifi- cate regarding the handing over of the old record to Om Prakash, KVIC (Khadi and Village Industries Commission) and the said certified copies are Ex.Z-1, Ex.Z-2 and Ex.Z-3.
14) PW-10 Dr. Bhawna Gupta, CCMO, Bhagwan Mahavir Hos-
pital, Pitampura, Delhi identified the signature of Dr. Pawan Gupta on the MLC No. 539 of patient Ved Prakash which is Ex.PW5/A at point C and D.
15) PW-11 ASI Rakesh deposed that on 12.04.2010, he was posted at PS Aman Vihar as Head constable and working as Duty Officer. At about 4.30 pm, he received a rukka sent by FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 10 of 17 IO SI Chand Singh through Ct. Prashant and on the basis of which he got FIR No. 118/2010, u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC reg- istered. The true print out of the FIR is Ex.PW11/A (OSR). He handed over the copy of FIR to Ct. Prashant for handing over the same to IO and made an endorsement Ex.PW11/B. He also produced certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act qua the said FIR which is Ex.PW11/C.
16) PW-12 Retd. ACP Sh. Babu Lal deposed that on 04.10.2011, he was posted as ACP, PCR Northern Range. On that day IO of the present case brought a file to him regarding the sanc- tion u/s 195 Cr.PC. IO brought the complete file including copy of FIR, Site plan, MLC and other documentary evi- dences alongwith the statements u/s 161 Cr.PC alongwith the rukka. After going through the file, he was satisfied that there are sufficient evidences on record on which a complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC should be filed. After the complete analysis of the file, he filed a complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC dated 04.10.2011 which is Ex.PW12/A.
17) PW-13 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Mauza Clerk, Record Room, Rohini Courts, Delhi has produced the original file of Suit No. 105/09, titled as Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Gopal Singh. As per the record, said case was decided on 30.10.2009 by the order of Sh. Amit Kuma, the then Ld. JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (North-West) and consigned to Record Room vide Goshwara No. 114/Civil. The said file contains order dated 30.10.2009 FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 11 of 17 and judgment of the said date. The order and judgment are Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B (OSR).
18) Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused was recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the ac- cused who maintained his innocence stating that "I am inno- cent and I have been falsely implicated in the present case. Even I was not present at the spot / place of occurrence. Some people who claimed themselves to be police officials met my wife at my residence bearing no. Z-465 Prem Nagar- II, Kirari, Delhi and asked her to vacate the property and threatened her and abused my wife, thereafter, nearby per- sons heard noises and came at the spot inquiring from the of- ficials as to why are they shouting at woman, upon which further quarrel took place between public persons and offi- cials". Accused has chosen to lead defence evidence.
19) DW-1 Smt. Rekha Singh, DW-2 Sh. Lalit Jha and DW-3 Smt. Roopa were examined and they were duly cross exam- ined by Ld. APP for the State.
20) Final arguments were then advanced on behalf of the State wherein it has been argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused be found guilty in the case. On the other hand, Ld. FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 12 of 17 counsel for the accused has argued that sufficient material has not been brought on record to prove that the accused committed the present offence.
21) The arguments as advanced by both the parties have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
22) It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatso- ever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
23) Coming to present case, the points for determination are whether the accused Gopal is guilty of:
(a). Obstructing public servants in the discharge of their of-
ficial duties (Section 186 IPC).
(b). Assaulting public servants to deter them from perform- ing their duties (Section 353 IPC).
(c). Voluntarily causing hurt to public servants and another individual (Sections 332 and 323 IPC).
(d). Acting in furtherance of common intention (Section 34 IPC).
FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 13 of 17 Appraisal of Evidence
24) PW1, an eye witness, did not support the prosecution's case.
He categorically stated that he did not witness the accused or the co-accused assaulting the PCR officials. Despite being cross-examined by the learned APP, PW1 maintained his stance and stated only that he noticed a quarrel between the accused's wife and a bailiff, after which public persons gath- ered, and he left the spot. In Ganesh v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 17 SCC 150, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a witness fails to corroborate the prosecution's case or denies the involvement of the accused during cross-examina- tion, their testimony cannot be relied upon to convict the ac- cused.
25) Apart from PW1, no other independent public witness was cited by the prosecution. As per PW8 ASI Chand Singh, the investigating officer (IO), no attempts were made to record the statements of public persons present at the scene, despite the claim that approximately 300 individuals were there. This omission raises doubts about the thoroughness of the investi- gation.
26) In Krishna Mochi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the non-exami- nation of independent witnesses, particularly when they are available, creates a serious dent in the prosecution's case and FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 14 of 17 raises doubts about its veracity.
27) PW3 Retired ASI Dharamveer testified that public persons scuffled with PCR officials. However, he failed to identify the accused, stating he lost consciousness during the incident. His inability to provide specific details about the accused fur- ther weakens the prosecution's case. In Subhash v. State of Haryana, (2011) 2 SCC 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the testimony of a key witness is vague or fails to iden- tify the accused with certainty, the prosecution cannot estab- lish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
28) The prosecution failed to produce the civil court's posses-
sion order, which was allegedly the reason for the bailiff's presence at the property. PW8 admitted he did not inquire about or verify the existence of such an order. The ownership of the disputed property was also not verified, raising ques- tions about the legitimacy of the bailiff's actions and the foundation of the incident. In Vijay Kumar v. State of Ra- jasthan, (2014) 3 SCC 412, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a material document, essential to the prosecution's case, is not produced in evidence, it creates a presumption against the prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
29) The alleged stick used in the assault was not seized or pro-
duced before the court. PW7 ASI Rajender claimed his uni- form was torn during the incident, but this was neither seized FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 15 of 17 nor brought on record.PW7 admitted the IO did not record his statement, and the handwritten statement he gave to the in-charge of PP Prem Nagar is not on record.
30) Based on the above analysis, The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused obstructed public servants or assaulted them. Material evidence, such as the alleged stick and the torn uniform, was not produced.
31) Independent public witnesses were not examined, and critical documents (such as the civil court's possession order) were not filed. Prosecution witnesses, including PW1 and PW3, did not support the prosecution's case.
32) The evidence on record is riddled with inconsistencies, mate-
rial omissions, and procedural lapses, leading this Court to conclude that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Decision
33) In view of the above findings, the accused Gopal is hereby acquitted from all charges under Sections 186, 353, 332, 323, and 34 IPC in FIR No. 118/2010 PS Aman Vihar.
34) Accused is directed to furnish bail bond / surety bond for Rs.
10,000/- each under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed to be present before the Ld. FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 16 of 17 Appellate Court as and when notice is served upon him.
35) File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 15.01.2025.
DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.15 12:27:14 +0530 (DIVYA ARORA) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears my signature. DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.01.15 12:27:18 +0530 (DIVYA ARORA) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 118/2010 (PS Aman Vihar) U/s 186/353/332/323/34 IPC State Vs. Gopal Singh Page No. 17 of 17