Delhi District Court
State vs Jatin Kumar Verma on 1 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Jatin Kumar Verma
FIR No : 94/2019
U/s : 186/279/353 IPC & 185/190 Motor Vehicles Act
P.S. : Domestic Airport
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020063762022
2. Date of commission of offence : 26.07.2019
3. Date of institution of the case : 07.02.2022
4. Name of the complainant : Ct. Sanjay
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Jatin Kumar Verma
address S/o B. S. Verma
R/o A-03, Plot no.206-
207, Sector-16, Rohini,
Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 186/279/353 IPC and
185/190 Motor
Vehicles Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 01.11.2025
Argued by:- Mr. Parvez Alam, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Sachin Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused.
FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 1 of 39
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01
15:09:46 +0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 26.07.2019 at about 12:35 AM, at Terminal-1, IGI Airport, Delhi, accused was driving the vehicle i.e. Verna car bearing registration no.DL8CAE1109 in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and he assaulted public servants namely the complainant ASI Ramveer Singh, CISF and other CISF officials while the complainant directed him to stop abovementioned vehicle in execution & discharge of his duties and he voluntarily obstructed the public servants namely ASI Ramveer Singh, CISF and other CISF officials. Further alcohol content of 98.8 mg/100 ml of blood as detected in the blood test of accused while he was found driving the abovementioned vehicle in public place while the said vehicle did not had one tyre and which rendered his driving of the said vehicle, a source of danger to the complainant and other CISF officials present at that place and thereby accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 186/279/353 IPC and Sections 185/190 Motor Vehicles Act, for which FIR no.94/2019 was registered at the police station Domestic Airport, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused. On his FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 2 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:45 +0530 appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, notice under Sections 186/279/353 IPC and Sections 185/190 Motor Vehicles Act was served upon the accused on 25.07.2022. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 SI Ramvir Singh PW-2 ASI Mahender PW-3 Inspector Satish Kumar PW-4 ASI/Exe. Kanwar Singh Yadav PW-5 ASI Mahesh Prasad PW-6 ASI Gordhan Singh PW-7 Retd. ASI Bhupal Singh PW-8 HC Raj Kumar PW-9 Shafi Khan Teli PW-10 ASI Rajesh Kumar PW-11 Inspector Kedar Yadav PW-12 Dr. Saurabh Kumar PW-13 Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Complaint Ex.P1 Photographs Ex.PW1/B Seizure memo qua car Ex.PW1/C Site plan Ex.PW1/D Seizure memo qua bottles of liquor Ex.P2 Bottle of Chivas Regal Ex.P3 Bottle of Chivas Regal Ex.PW3/A Entry in register no.19 at serial no.318 Ex.PW10/A Tehrir FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 3 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:50 +0530 Ex.PW10/B Seizure memo qua bottles of liquor Ex.PW10/C Seizure memo qua blood sample Ex.PW10/D Notice u/S 41A Cr. P. C. Ex.PW10/E Mechanical inspection report Ex.PW11/A Notice u/S 91A Cr. P. C. Ex.PW11/B Duty roster Ex.PW11/C Notice for providing sanction u/S 195 Cr. P. C. Ex.PW11/D Sanction u/S 195 Cr. P. C. Ex.PW12/A MLC bearing no.49793/19 ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.94/2019 dated 26.07.2019 alongwith certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.A2 DD no.8A dated 26.07.2019
4. Prosecution examined the following witnesses and the same are as follows:
PW1 Ct. Sanjay deposed that in the intervening night of 25/26.07.2019, he was on duty at main entry naka at Terminal-1D, Domestic Airport, Delhi from 09:00 pm to 05:00 am. He stated that at about 12:35 am, one grey colour car bearing registration no. DL-8CAE-1109 came towards the naka and the said car was making sound as the front passenger side tyre and tube were missing from the wheel and the said car was running on the rim/wheel and that he gestured the driver of the said car to stop. He further stated that initially the driver of the said car slowed down the speed of the car but when he went towards the said driver, he accelerated the vehicle and fled towards the departure side. He further stated that thereafter, he informed the next naka to block the said vehicle through wireless set and thereafter, seeing the naka closed, the driver took a U-turn and went on the road towards the arrival and that he further transmitted through wireless to block the said. He further stated that the accused tried to take the vehicle towards the departure FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 4 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:43 +0530 but since the naka was already closed, the accused turned the said vehicle towards the spot where he was present and during that time, he had already installed the heavy barricade on his side due to which the accused slowed down his car and thereafter, he with the help of other CISF officials including the shift incharge Sh. Thakur and Inspector Satish Kumar, who reached to his aid, apprehended the accused and took over the keys of the said vehicle. He further stated that in the whole process, accused had scratched his car against some of the taxis which were there on the road. He stated that he handed over the accused to the police officials and he lodged his complaint Ex.PW1/A and the present FIR was registered upon his complaint. He stated that the police officials kept the car alongwith the accused at the police station and after completing his duty for the day, he came back to his room. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the Court and the offending car through photographs as Ex.P1 (colly). As PW1 did not support the case of prosecution on material facts, Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he stated that the offending car driven by accused on the day of incident did not have the registration number plate as the bumper of the said car was missing and the car was in a damaged condition from front side and its radiator and engine were visible from the front. He stated that the accused took the car towards the departure naka and tried to flee away with the offending car after hitting the barricade but since the CISF officials tried to stop him, he drove the offending vehicle in reverse gear towards the naka.
He stated that the accused drove the offending car on the wrong side while coming back towards the naka where he was posted and, in that process, tried to ran over CISF officials. He further FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 5 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:48 +0530 stated that at the time of incident when the accused was apprehended, he was in an intoxicated condition and the offending car was seized by the police officials vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He stated that the police officials had prepared the site plan upon his instance Ex.PW1/C and upon checking the vehicle, two liquor bottles of make Chivas Regal Ages 12 years Blended Scotch Whiskey, one of which was in sealed condition while there was about 100 ml. Whiskey left in another bottle and both the bottles were sealed by the police officials in separate pullandas made of white cloth sealed with the seal of '10 DOM AIRPORT' and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. The witness had correctly identified both the bottles as Ex.PW2 and Ex. P3. In the cross-examination, he stated that the checking post present at the spot of incident was pukka structure and the Airport area was a sensitive one. He stated that there was camera installed prior to the spot where he was posted at the checking post and the said camera was working one which recorded the movement of traffic. He stated that the checking post where he was posted was the main entry naka and if the vehicle was found suspicious, it would have been stopped at the naka and checked. He stated that there was no prior intimation was received by him regarding the present vehicle coming towards entry naka and he alongwith six other CISF personnel were present at the said naka and they were armed with weapons for security purposes. He stated that none of the vehicle owners whose vehicle scratched by the offending vehicle driven by the accused called on 100 number as per his knowledge as no public person usually wants to get indulged in court cases. He stated that when a car was running on rim, its scratches were visible on the road and to his knowledge the police officials did not get the spot of incident FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 6 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:41 +0530 video recorded or photographs of the spot where the scratches on the road were taken. He stated that IO did not record the statements of any public person present at the spot in his presence and he did not make any 100 number call to the police control room.
5. PW2 ASI Mahender brought the register no.19 and he proved the entry no.318 Ex.PW2/A with respect to the case property.
6. PW3 Inspector Satish Kumar deposed that on 25.07.2019, his duty timings were from 09:00 pm to 05:00 am (night duty on the intervening night of 25/26.07.2019) and in the night at about 12:40 am, upon receiving message on CISF Control Room, he came at main entry naka where he saw that the CISF staff had stopped a car bearing no.DL-8C-AE-1109 which was coming from Terminal-1A area on wrong side. He further stated that there was no tyre on the left side front wheel and the said car was being driven on rim and the car was not having bumper and the number plate and the said car was stopped by putting barrier. He stated that the driver of the said car disclosed his name to be Jatin Kumar Verma and he was in an intoxicated condition at that time. Thereafter, the local police were called and accused was handed over to them. The witness correctly identified the offending vehicle through photographs. In the cross-examination, he stated that he reached at the spot of incident within two minutes after he received the message and there were public persons present at the spot of incident as the said vehicles stopped due to incident in question/ barricading. He stated that there were CCTV cameras installed near the spot of incident but he did not know whether there were CCTV cameras installed FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 7 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:49 +0530 prior to the spot of incident. He stated that he did not call on 100 number and the call on 100 number was done through control room and local police came to the spot of incident within 15-20 minutes. He stated that the local police official did not record the statement of any public persons in his presence and it was possible that there would have been scratch marks on the road as the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused on rim. He could not say whether the police officials took any photograph of the road.
7. PW4 ASI/Exe. Kanwar Singh Yadav deposed that on 25.07.2019 he was posted as ASI, CISF at Terminal no1. Domestic Airport and in the intervening night of 25/26.07.2019, his duty timings being from 09:00 pm to 05:00 am at departure naka and at about 12:35 am midnight, one vehicle came from Mehram Nagar side and the said vehicle was being driven on one of the rim as the said wheel did not had tyre or tube and was coming while making noise. He stated that his colleague ASI Rambir instructed the said driver to stop the vehicle but initially the driver slowed the vehicle but thereafter, ran it speedily and crossed the naka and went towards the departure. He stated that thereafter, they messaged the next naka officers on walky-talky to stop the said vehicle and thereafter, the said driver brought back that the vehicle while driving on the wrong side and hit the naka and thereafter, the driver wanted to flee away but they apprehended him as soon as the offending vehicle stopped and the accused disclosed his name to be Jatin. He stated that thereafter, police officials came at the spot and they went back to their duties. The witness correctly identified the offending car through photographs. As PW4 did not support the case of prosecution on FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 8 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:43 +0530 material facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he stated that when they apprehended the accused, he was under the influence of liquor and there were liquor bottles present inside the car and thereafter, the accused was handed over to the local police. In the cross-examination, he stated that there were CCTV Cameras installed near the spot of incident and also prior to the spot of incident and there were other vehicles also present near the spot of incident as the vehicles were passing by that road. He stated that there was no naka prior to the naka where he was posted on the day of incident and the offending vehicle was coming towards the naka making sounds. He stated that he did not call on 100 number as he did not have any phone and the same might have been done by his senior officials. He stated that the offending vehicle had hit the cars present at the spot while they came back towards his naka but those vehicle drivers also did not call on 100 number in his presence.
8. PW5 ASI Mahesh Prasad deposed that on 25.07.2019, he was posted as ASI, CISF at Terminal no1. Domestic Airport and in the intervening night of 25/26.07.2019, his duty timings being from 09:00 pm to 06:15 am at Terminal-1 Naka and at about 12:00 am midnight, one vehicle came from Mehram Nagar side towards the departure road. He stated that the registration number of the vehicle was 1109 but he did not remember the complete number and the said vehicle was being driven on one of the rims as the said wheel did not have tyre or tube and was coming while making noise. He stated that they asked ASI Rambir Singh to stop the said vehicle and ASI Rambir instructed the said driver to stop the vehicle but initially the driver slowed the vehicle but FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 9 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:40 +0530 thereafter, he again drove it speedily and crossed the naka and went towards the departure. He stated that ASI Rambir messaged the next naka officers on walky-talky to stop the said vehicle and thereafter, the said driver brought back that the vehicle while driving on the wrong side and hit the naka and the driver wanted to flee away but they apprehended him as soon as the offending vehicle stopped. He further stated that their officials came at the spot and they went back to their duties. He stated that he could not identify the offending vehicle as well as accused, as he had only seen him once for just 3-4 seconds. As PW5 did not support the case of prosecution on material facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross- examination, wherein he stated that he could not tell if name of the driver was Jatin Verma and he was driving the vehicle in a state of inebriation. He could not tell if the accused was handed over to local police. In the cross-examination, he stated that there were CCTV Cameras installed near the spot of incident and also prior to the spot of incident.
9. PW6 ASI Gordhan Singh deposed that on 25.07.2019, he was posted as HC CISF, Terminal-1, Domestic Airport, Delhi and in the intervening night of 25/26.07.2019, he was on duty from 09:00 pm to 06:00 am at naka morcha Terminal-1 and at about 11:00 pm to 12:00 am midnight. He stated that one vehicle make grey colour bearing registration no. DL-8C-1109 came at naka and duty officials at naka tried to stop the said vehicle but the driver of the said vehicle drove away in a speedy manner. He stated that thereafter, the way of said vehicle was blocked at the naka ahead as message was passed from the previous naka and the said vehicle then came back and he remained at the place of FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 10 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:47 +0530 his duty and did not leave from there. He stated that he could not identify the accused and the offending vehicle. As PW6 did not support the case of prosecution on material facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he stated that the left side tyre of vehicle was missing and loud noise was created by the vehicle as it was being run on rim. He stated that he could say that the name of driver was Jatin Verma as he had read the name of case but he did not know his name was Jatin Verma. He could not tell if the accused was driving the vehicle in an inebriated condition. In the cross-examination, he stated that CCTV cameras were installed at naka and the police officials did not record his statement.
10. PW7 Retd. ASI Bhupal Singh deposed that on 25.07.2019, he was posted as ASI, CISF at Terminal-1, Domestic Airport and in the intervening night of 25/26.07.2019, he was on duty at main entry naka and his duty timings were from 9:00pm to 5:00am and at about 12:35 midnight one grey colour car came from Mehram Nagar side and the said car did not had tyre on the front left side wheel and was being driven on rim. He stated that ASI Ramvir Singh signaled the said car to stop but the driver of the said car for once lowered its speed but suddenly took off at a fast pace while scratching the car with the barricades and towards departure but since the naka at the departure by the said time got closed, the accused brought the offending vehicle on the wrong side towards Terminal-1A but since the barricades on that side also got closed the accused brought the offending vehicle towards main entry naka and they with the help of the other CIFS officials apprehended the accused, who disclosed his name to be Jatin Verma, who appeared to be under the influence of liquor.
FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 11 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:54 +0530 Thereafter, the accused was handed over to the local police and IO recorded his statement. In the cross-examination, he stated that there were total of 6 CISF personals deployed at the main entry naka including him but he did not remember the names of those CISF personals other than Rambir. He stated that there were four barricades put at the spot in a zig zag manner so that the vehicles could be slow down and checked if required. He stated that only one car could pass through the barricade slowly if the barricades were deployed and they usually stopped only those car which appeared to be suspicious. He stated that the accused was asked to stop the offending vehicle as the said vehicle was driven on one rim without tyre and the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused at a high speed in-spite of the fact that one of the tyre was missing and it was only running on rim on that side. He stated that there were two CCTV cameras installed near the spot of incident but he could not say when the car would run on rim, there ought to be scratch marks on the road. He stated that there were two cameras installed in which the incident in question might have got recorded and the barricades also got scratched when the offending vehicle hit it. He stated that there were other vehicles which did not got scratched the offending vehicle and there were some public persons who got gathered at the spot of incident. He could not say whether the steering of the car would get locked if a car was being driven on rims for a period of 20 to 25 minutes.
11. PW8 HC Raj Kumar deposed on the lines of PW7. In the cross- examination, he stated that there was a total of 6 CISF personals deployed at the main entry naka including him but he did not remember the names of those CISF personals other than Rambir.
FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 12 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:54 +0530 He stated that there were four barricades put at the spot in a zig zag manner so that the vehicles could be slow down and checked if required. He stated that only one car could pass through the barricade slowly if the barricades were deployed and they usually stopped only those car which appeared to be suspicious. He stated that the accused was asked to stop the offending vehicle as the said vehicle was driven on one rim without tyre and at a high speed in-spite of the fact that one of the tyre was missing and it was only running on rim on that side. He stated that there were two CCTV cameras installed near the spot of incident. He could not say whether when the car would run on rim, there ought to be scratch marks on the road. He stated that there were two cameras installed in which the incident in question might have got recorded and the barricades also got scratched when the offending vehicle hit it. He stated that there were other vehicles which did not got scratched the offending vehicle and there were some public persons who got gathered at the spot of incident. He stated that it took about a total 20 to 25 minutes in the entire incident in question and during the said 20 minutes the vehicle was being run on one rim without tyre. He stated that he could not say whether the steering of the car would get locked if a car was being driven on rims for a period of 20 to 25 minutes.
12. PW9 Shafi Khan Teli deposed that in the year 2019, he was posted as Ct (CISF) at PS Terminal-1, Domestic Airport and in the intervening night on 25/26/-7.2019, he was on night duty from 9:00pm to 5:00am along with Ct. Santosh Kumar and Ct. Neetu Singh at departure T-1D. He stated that on that day, about 12:40 am, he received a call from control room CISF regarding DL-8CAE-1109, grey colour and he received instruction from the FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 13 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:40 +0530 control room to stop the car and thereafter, he blocked the road with the barricades. He stated that after sometimes, the above said car reached and after seen the barricades the driver of the above said car reversed the car and moved the car on wrong side and went to main entry naka. In the cross-examination, he stated that he received call from the Central Control Room between 12:30am to 12:40am and there were two barricades one was main naka entry and second at the place where he was on duty. He stated that CCTV cameras installed at both the naka and he saw that the above said car coming from first naka in high speed but he did not know what was the exact speed of the above said car. He stated that IO did not record statement of any public persons in his presence and there was no collusion with other car at that time between 12:30 to 12:40 am. He stated that in his view there were no impact any barricade in their presence. He stated that he could not see the face of the driver of the offending car as he was running from the spot and it was dark.
13. PW10 ASI Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 26.07.2019, he received DD no.2B and thereafter, he left the PS and reached at the spot i.e. Terminal-1, Domestic Airport where he met with ASI Rambir Singh, complainant, who handed over to him custody of accused and car bearing registration no. DL-8CAE-1109. QRT staff (Ct. Ramraj) shifted the accused to Safdarjung Hospital. He stated that during investigation, he seized the abovesaid vehicle and complainant reached at PS and gave his statement to him and on the basis of which he prepared tehrir Ex.PW10/A. He stated that he handed over the same to DO for registration of FIR and after some time, duty officer handed over to him copy of FIR and original tehrir. He stated that he also FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 14 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:52 +0530 seized two bottles which were found in the abovesaid car vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B. He stated that Ct. Ram Raj handed over to him blood sample and sample seal to him and the same was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/C. He stated that he also served notice u/S 41A Cr. P. C. upon the accused Ex.PW10/D and released. He stated that during investigation, he also got conducted mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle through mechanical expert Tasnimuddin Siddique and he also obtained mechanical inspection report Ex.PW10/E. The witness correctly identified aaccused present through VC and case property. In the cross-examination, he stated that he received a telephonic call at PS from DO at about 01:25 am and there was no PCR call and his departure/ravangi was written on his DD entry. He stated that he inquired about the incident for about two hours and there were many cameras installed at the place of occurrence but he did not preserve the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence and he had not clicked any photograph of the place of occurrence. He stated that accused was sent for medical examination through Ct. Ramraj at about 04:15 am through patrolling gypsy but he could not record statement of driver of gypsy as well as not mentioned the registration number of gypsy in his investigation. He stated that the police gypsy returned back at about 07:00 am after medical examination of accused and some injuries i.e. face of injured was swollen when he saw him for the first time. He stated that injuries were caused by the officials of CISF, who caught the accused and he mentioned while recording the statement and preparing the charge-sheet, that the officials of CISF used legal and legitimate force upon the injured at the time of his apprehension. He stated that he could not tell whether the CISF official had forcefully FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 15 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:39 +0530 made accused to consume liquor so as to save themselves from the prosecution as they had wrongfully given beating to the accused only to create false defence of self-defence. He stated that when he saw the vehicle in question for the first time, the front left tyre of the vehicle was missing and the vehicle was only with the rim but the vehicle could not be made to run on a high speed. He stated that as per the statement of the witnesses, who stated that so many persons were gathered there and many vehicles were damaged but he had not recorded any statement of the said public witnesses. He stated that if any vehicle was driven only on rim, it's very natural that some scratch marks of the said rim must have been made on the road and no material evidence or photographs of the scratch marks of the vehicle of accused was collected during the course of investigation. He stated that due to collision of the vehicle of accused with barricades, some damages were sustained by the police barricades as well but he did not took any photograph of the said damages upon the police barricades nor he took any CCTV footage of the place of barricades. He stated that the whole area was under the CCTV surveillance and he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant ASI Rambir but the site plan does not bear the signatures of complainant. He stated that when he reached at the spot he did not see any CISF official being in any injured state.
14. PW11 Inspector Kedar Yadav deposed that the investigation of the present case was marked to him in the month of November- December 2019 and during investigation, he served notice u/S 91A Cr. P. C. to CASO CISF, IGI Airport for providing the duty roster of date 26.07.2019 of ASI Rambir Singh Ex.PW11/A and same was provided to him by the CISF staff Ex.PW11/B (colly).
FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 16 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:46 +0530 He stated that during investigation, he also served notice to the CASO CISF, IGI Airport for providing sanction u/S 195 Cr. P. C. Ex.PW11/C and CISF staff provided the same to him and he also obtained FSL result dated 24.10.2019 Ex.PW11/D. He stated that after completion of investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet before the concerned court. In the cross-examination, he stated that he received the investigation of the present case on
15.10.2019 but he did not remember the exact date when he sent the notice u/S 91 Cr. P. C. to CISF Department. He stated that he prepared the list of witnesses in the present matter but he did not remember when he received the duty roster of the CISF officials.
15. PW12 Dr. Saurabh Kumar identified the signatures of Dr. Sapanpreet Singh, Junior Resident on the MLC bearing no.49793/19 of patient Jatin Verma Ex.PW12/A. He stated that as per the MLC, the patient had suffered bruises on right eye, abrasion on right hand wrist, abrasion on left of neck and the patient complain of pain in left knee but no swelling present there. In the cross-examination, he stated that the MLC was not prepared in front of him and he could not tell as to how the injuries mentioned in MLC were sustained by the patient.
16. PW13 Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo proved the report Ex.PW11/D and the said report no.SFSL DLH/7534/CHEM/2454/19 dated 24.10.2019 was prepared by him at the request of SHO PS Domestic Airport. In the said report, he opined that Ex.1 i.e. blood sample of Jatin Verma was found containing ethyl alcohol 98.8 mg/100 ml. of blood. In the cross-examination, he stated that sample was sent to their office by the concerned police official from the PS and the sample was received at their office FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 17 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:51 +0530 on 30.07.2019 and he submitted the final opinion on 24.10.2019. He stated that it was not possible that the samples submitted at their office gets exchanged.
17. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined, hence, P.E was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
18. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein he had stated that he was innocent and had falsely been implicated in the present case. He further stated that he was not drunk and that he was coming from Greater Noida towards Airport to see off some person whereafter the CISF personnel wrongly stopped his vehicle by affixing barricades which damaged his car and when he was apprehended, they asked money from him and made him drink alcohol, for the same reason alcohol was detected in his blood test. He further stated that police officials brutally gave him beating and that no facts as stated by the prosecution ever happened and that he was falsely implicated and for the same reason, no public persons were joined in the investigation. He further stated that he did not want to lead defence evidence.FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 18 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:45 +0530 FINAL ARGUMENTS
19. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
20. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
21. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
22. It is a paramount tenet of criminal law that every accused is presumed to be innocent and cannot be convicted unless the prosecution is able to discharge the initial onus rested upon it beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, the prosecution is under a bounden duty to prove all these points on the aforesaid standard to drive home the guilt of accused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE & FINDINGS.
FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 19 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:49 +0530
23. The allegations levelled against accused person for the sake of appreciation of evidence are segregated into three parts:
Firstly, that accused person on 26.07.2019 at about 12:35 AM, at Terminal-1, IGI Airport, Delhi, while driving the car bearing registration no.DL8CAE1109, assaulted public servants namely the complainant ASI Ramveer Singh and other CISF officials when he was directed by CISF officials to stop abovementioned vehicle in execution & discharge of their duties however, accused voluntarily obstructed and assaulted the public servants in discharge of their official duty and accordingly he was charged under section 186/353 IPC. Secondly, accused drove the car bearing registration no.DL8CAE1109 in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and thereby accused committed offence punishable under section 279 IPC. Thirdly, that accused person was drunk while driving the above mentioned vehicle which was not having one tyre rendering his driving a source of danger to the public at large and thereby committed offence punishable under section 185/190 Motor Vehicles Act.
24. Let us deal with the first set of allegations as per the case of prosecution against the accused person which relates to the commission of offence punishable under Sections 186/353 IPC. The import of the above sections is to punish persons who create obstruction in the discharge of duties of public servants. While Section 186 IPC envisages merely voluntary obstruction, section 353 IPC lays down an additional condition that such obstruction must be caused by assaulting or using criminal force against the public servant. In fact, the distinction between these two FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 20 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:50 +0530 provisions has been clearly borne out in Durgacharan Naik & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1966 SC 1775 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following words: -
"5. It is true that most of the allegations in this case upon which the charge under Section 353, Indian Penal Code is based are the same as those constituting the charge under Section. 186, Indian Penal Code but it cannot be ignored that Sections 186 and 353, Indian Penal Code relate to two distinct offences and while the offence under the latter section is a cognizable offence, the one under the former section is not so. The ingredients of the two offences are also distinct.
Section 186, Indian Penal Code is applicable to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the discharge of his public functions but under Section 353, Indian Penal Code the ingredient of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary. The quality of the two offences is also different. Section 186 occurs in Ch. X of the Indian Penal Code dealing with contempts of the lawful authority of public servants, while Section 353 occurs in Ch. XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body."
25. In the instant case, the Court is posed with following questions for determination to adjudge the veracity of prosecution case:-
(a) whether the complainant namely PW1 SI Rambir Singh was a public servant at the time of alleged commission of offences in question?
(b) whether the said person was acting in discharge of his public functions assigned to him?
(c) whether any obstruction or deterrence was caused to the said person in the discharge of his public functions by the act of accused?
(c.i) for the purpose of Section 186 IPC, whether the complaint was filed before this court u/S 195 Cr.P.C? (c.ii) for the purpose of Section 353 IPC, whether the accused had assaulted or used any criminal force to the said person during the execution of his duties?
FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 21 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:43 +0530
26. As regards the first point, whether the complainant was a public servant at the time of alleged commission of the offence, the only evidence on record to show that complainant was a public servant at the time of alleged incident is the duty roster Ex.PW11/B (colly) dated 25.07.2019 from 25.07.2019 from 21 hours to 0500 hours "F" COY as procured by the IO from CASO, CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi which shows complainant PW1, and other PWs that is PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8 and PW9 being at duty as CISF personnel at Naka Terminal-1. Thereby it is established by way of said duty roster that PW1 alongwith other CISF official were deputed on duty at Arrival, Terminal-1 New Delhi.
Further, accused person has not disputed the fact that complainant is not a public servant who was serving security personal at nakka at Arrival, Terminal-1 New Delhi on the date of incident. Thereby it is clear that complainant was the public servant as he was drawing remuneration/ pay from the government for the performance of his public duty as a CISF personal.
27. The second issue is whether the complaint as filed by complainant PW1 was filed before this court under Section 195 Cr. P. C. At the outset, the relevant portion of Section 195 of Cr. P.C. is reproduced herein-under for reference:
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance--FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 22 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:47 +0530
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Penal Code, 1860, (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
28. Now, it is a general condition to initiate prosecution u/S 186 IPC to see that the complaint is filed under Section 195 Cr. P. C. by the concerned public servant or his supervisor officer to whom he is subordinate. It is also not possible to bypass the requirement of Section 195 Cr. P. C. At this stage it is worthwhile to highlight the recent case of Santokh Singh Chawla v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4773, where in Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that,
33. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarized to the effect that there must be a complaint by the public servant whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of Section 195 Cr. P.C. are mandatory. Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. The Court cannot assume the cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction."
29. Also, as held in case of Gurucharan Singh Arora v. The State, (2002) 96 DLT 181, relevant observations of which read as under:
"5. ...In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to quote relevant portion of complaint. It reads:--FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 23 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:42 +0530 "I Sh. G.L. Mehta, Inspector, SHO, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi in pursuance of Section'195 Cr. P.C. hereby give consent to prosecution (1) Gurcharan Singh Arora S/o Jagaj Nath Arora R/o G-29, Bali Nagar, Delhi, FIR No. 557/93, under Section186/332/353/506/34 IPC and 185 & 39/192 M.V. Act, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi & (2) Gaurav Arora S/o gurcharan Singh Arora r/o G-29, Gali Nagar, Delhi under Section 186/332/353/506/34 IPCvide case FIR No. 557/93, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi."
6. Section 2(d) of Cr. P.C. defines the complaint to mean any allegation made orally or in writing to a magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. It is true that no particular form is prescribed in which the complaint should be made and the substance of the complaint that is to be read. It is not necessary that it should categorise elements of the offence to be charged. It is enough that the facts alleged should constitute an offence for which the accused is charged. It does not matter even if the complainant quotes wrong Sections. The complaint is meant to put the machinery of law in motion. Whether allegations were made with a view to take action against the accused would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
7. In this case, there was nothing in the complaint quoted above to indicate that the complaint was made to the Magistrate for taking action under Section 186 IPC. Mere consent of the SHO for prosecution of the accused cannot be construed as the complaint. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate that the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. Therefore, the charge under Section 186 IPC against the petitioner is not sustainable. It is needless to observe that in all such cases, the complaint should be filed by the concerned public servant with a prayer to take action against the accused and whenever such complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. is filed along with charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr. P.C., the Courts while taking cognizance, should also take note of such complaint, to avoid any technical objection at a later stage..."
30. In the present case, complaint under Section 195 Cr. P. C. was made by Sh. Deepak Chauhan, Senior Commandant/ Administration for Deputy Inspector General/CASO, IGI Airport, New Delhi. Importantly, that the said senior police official who filed the said complaint u/S 195 Cr. P. C. was neither called as a witness nor cited as a witness in the prosecution witness list. The FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 24 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:54 +0530 non-examination of the person who had given the said sanction makes the sanction being unproved. Examination of the sanctioning authority is a pre-requisite to establish that the sanction was obtained after the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the material obtained through investigation before the grant of sanction. As per settled law, grant of sanction is not an idle formality and that its validity must be proved by way of examination of sanctioning authority. Perusal of the complaint u/S 195 Cr. P. C. Ex.PW11/D which was tendered by IO PW11 in his testimony as obtained by him reveals that the same is issued vide letter no.
IC:17098(24)/CISF/IGI/AASU/POLICE/21-1059 dated 14.01.2021 as issued by Senior Commandant/ Administration for Deputy Inspector General/CASO, IGI Airport, New Delhi. However, neither any office record from the concerned office was summoned to prove the said moving of complaint u/S 195 Cr. P. C. by the concerned officer nor the said Senior Commandant/Administration for Deputy Inspector General was ever called in the prosecution evidence nor the same is mentioned in the prosecution witness list. Non-examination of the sanctioning authority goes to the root of the of prosecution case making the entire trial vitiated.
31. Proceeding to the third issue as to whether complainant was acting in discharge of his public function assigned to him at the time of incident, first and foremost, the version of the accused which has come on record and accused has himself admitted in his statement recorded u/S 313 Cr.P.C. that he had gone to the Airport for seeinng off his frined whereupon his vehicle was wrongly stopped by CISF by affixing barricades which damaged FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 25 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:55 +0530 his vehicle. At this juncture, this court seeks to rely on the following observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Alister Anthony Pareira 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1489 (and further affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in appeal) as regards the use of statement made by accused without oath during the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C:-
"While rejecting this contention we would also observe that the admission or confession of the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code, in so far as it provides support or even links to, or aids the case of the prosecution proved on record, can also be looked into by the court in arriving at its final conclusion. It will be more so when explanation in the form of answers given by the accused under Section 313 of the Code are apparently untrue and also when no cross examination of the crucial prosecution witnesses was conducted on this line."
32. Therefore not only accused has affirmed his presence at the spot on the relevant date and time but also stated that he was stopped by CISF officials by affixing barricades. Further, as per duty roster Ex.PW11/D, prosecution has duly proved by way of record that complainant and other CISF officials examined in the prosecution evidence were performing their assigning duties at the relevant time and at occurrence of incident. No material has been brought on record by the defence to discredit the authenticity of the said duty roster. Hence, it stands established that complainant alongwith other CISF officials on the date of incident were discharging their public function as assigned to them.
33. On to the fourth issue of whether the conduct of accused towards the concerned public servant i.e. PW1 complainant was such as to lead obstruction in he duty of such public servant and whether FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 26 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:51 +0530 accused had used criminal force and assaulted the said public servants to deter them from discharge of their official duties.
34. To prove that accused assaulted and obstructed the complainant and other PWs in discharge of their public duties, the prosecution examined complainant as PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8 and PW9 being other CISF officials who were at the spot i.e. naka barricade when the present incident happened. A careful perusal of testimonies of complainant/ PW1 and PW4 to PW9 who all stated the same version, that on the date of incident they were performing their duty at the naka at Terminal-1. They all stated that one grey colour vehicle came towards naka and they observed that the said vehicle was not having front tyre and the same was making noise whereupon all the officials at said naka instructed the driver of the said car to stop and the said driver initially slowed down but later on drove away in a speedy manner whereupon they messaged through wireless on the next naka to get the said vehicle stopped. They all further stated that thereafter the driver of the said vehicle brought back the said vehicle at their naka while driving on the wrong side and hitting their naka barricade. It is their own version that thereafter they apprehended the accused being the driver of said vehicle. Although some of the CISF officials i.e. PW5 and PW6 could not identify either the vehicle or the accused but they reiterated the same version. Furthermore, other CISF officials i.e. PW3 stated that he received a message from CISF Control Room whereupon he went to the main entry naka and saw that the CISF personnel had stopped one car having no tyre on the front left side with no front bumper and registration number plate.
FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 27 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:50 +0530
35. Interestingly, complainant/ PW1 alongwith all the CISF staff examined who were manning the said nakka barricade stated that there were cameras installed prior to the said spot and in and around the airport area as the airport is sensitive place. Interestingly, complainant/ PW1 also stated that during the said incident, accused driving the vehicle while taking the U-turn scratched his car with some of the taxis which were on the road.
36. As, it is stated by the PWs that the incident must have been captured in the CCTV footage, it becomes a vital piece of evidence however, no CCTV footages of the incident were filed on record by the prosecution. Since the place of incident was of airport area and CCTVs are generally installed in the said vicinity. However, it remains wholly unexplained as to why the Investigating Officer did not take any steps to procure or seize the CCTV footage from the cameras installed at or around the spot of incident, despite the admitted position that the area was under constant surveillance. It is common knowledge that airport premises these days are usually equipped with CCTV camera however, the no such footage as procured. even efforts to procure such footage was never undertaken. Although the intention of not doing such basic investigation cannot be termed deliberate at this stage but the same cannot be ignored being callous or due to being unprofessional. such lapses in the investaigtion undermines public trust in the legal system. Prosecution in such investigation is bound to fail only. At this stage, it is relevant to mention the judgment as passed by the bench of Justices Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi of the Supreme Court of India while hearing the case of Tomaso Bruno & Anr vs State Of U.P (2015), wherein it stated that, FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 28 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:52 +0530 "CCTV footage was to be considered as the best piece of evidence in order to prove the presence of the accused at the crime scene and it was for the prosecution to produce such evidence. In cases of failure, serious doubts about the case of the prosecution could be welcomed. The arguments that were advanced by the prosecution, in this case, was that the onus to prove that the accused was not at the crime scene was on the accused in accordance with Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which therefore placed the burden of proving a fact within the knowledge of a person upon such person. Duly acknowledging the same, the Apex Court held that in order to invoke Section 106 of the Act of 1872 against the accused to prove his alibi, the prosecution had to establish the presence of the accused first and since the witnesses themselves had made a reference to the CCTV footage in this present case, a failure to produce the same did raise serious doubts about the prosecution's case."
No explanation has been offered for this omission, thereby casting a shadow of doubt on the fairness and completeness of the investigation conducted. Also the photographs tendered in the prosecution witness Ex.P1 (colly) are of the photographs of the offending vehicle not taken at the spot but rather during superdari proceedings when the vehicle was seized and kept in PS.
37. Further, merely because CISF officials were manning a nakka for checking suspicious vehicles crossing the same and that accused did not stop his vehicle and as per the version of the prosecution version, even if believed to be true, that accused turned around and went towards the other nakka whereafter the was eventually stopped, cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that accused has obstructed a public servant in discharge of his official duty within the meaning of Section 186 IPC.
38. To attract criminal liability for "obstruction," there must be a positive act of resistance, interference, or use of force which actually hinders or prevents the public servant from performing his lawful duty. A mere act of non-compliance or running away FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 29 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:53 +0530 from the spot as may amount to disobedience or suspicious movement, but unless accompanied by intentional obstruction or active resistance, it does not constitute an offence of obstruction. The essence of the offence lies in mens rea that is, the intention to obstruct or prevent the public servant from lawfully discharging his duty. It is a settled law that proof is required that the accused knowingly and intentionally caused hindrance, and mere avoidance or omission does not satisfy that requirement. Accordingly, unless the prosecution establishes that the accused wilfully interfered with the lawful duties of the public servant by some positive act or resistance, the offence of obstruction cannot be said to have been made out merely because the accused failed to stop.
39. Moreover, there are no independent witnesses of the incident, despite alleged incident happening at the road leading towards the airport. All CISF staff who were manning the naka examined as PWs stated in their respective testimonies that there were public persons available at the spot, however, for reasons best known to IO no such public persons were joined in the investigation. As discussed above, even the CCTV footage were not procured, accordingly, the ingredients qua Section 186/353 IPC against the accused are not made out in view of non- procurement of material evidences.
40. The second set of allegations against the accused person is that, accused drove the car bearing registration no. DL8CAE1109 in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and thereby accused committed offence punishable under section 279 IPC.
FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 30 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:48 +0530 Section 279 IPC proscribes the driving of vehicle on a public way in such a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. The position of law with respect to offence u/s 279 IPC is discussed in the case of case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133(2006) DLT 562, wherein it was held that;
"In Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under Section 279 or Section 304A, the commission of a rash and negligent act has to be proved".
41. Further, what would constitute rash and negligent act has been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 28.07.2000, in the following words:-
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with reckless- ness and with indifference as to the consequences.
Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against in- jury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
42. Besides, the ingredients of the section with which accused is charged, the identity of the accused as driver of the vehicle must also be established separately by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused.
FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 31 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:44 +0530
43. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution was under the obligation to prove the following for establishing the case against the accused person:
a. Identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle.
b. That the alleged incident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place.
RE: IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED
44. All the material prosecution witnesses have identified the accused to be present at the spot with his vehicle and even accused in the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC, has not denied that he was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of incident. Accused although has stated that there was no fault on his part. Thus, it stands established that accused was the driver of the offending vehicle.
RE: ALLEGED ACCIDENT BEING THE RESULT OF RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING OF THE ACCUSED.
45. Where the fact that accused was driving the offending vehicle is established, it has to be seen whether accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
46. For establishing the rash and negligent act of driving the offending vehicle by the accused, the main testimony is again of PW1/ complainant and other CISF personnel present at naka i.e. PW4 to PW9. As discussed in preceding paragraphs all the PWs stated that the offending vehicle was seen driven with its front left tyre missing and the vehicle was being driven on its rim with its front bumper missing. Before proceeding to evaluate their FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 32 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:44 +0530 testimonies it is relevant as to how the information qua the incident was reported to the police.
47. As per IO PW10 upon receiving DD no.2B, he reached at the spot i.e. Terminal-1, Domestic Airport, where he met the complainant PW1 who handed the custody of accused along with the offending vehicle to him. Perusal of the record shows that no such DD number is to be filed with the record and thereby it is not clear as to how the said CISF personnel reported the matter to the police. As already discussed in the preceding paragraphs no CCTV footage of the incident despite the incident happening in 24X7 surveillance area such as the Airport which could have shown the offending vehicle being driven without its tyre. Even the photographs Ex.P1 (colly) shows the vehicle not at the spot but at the PS.
48. Further, it is relevant to pursue the site plan to ascertain the state of affairs as recorded by the IO when he reached at the spot. The site plan Ex.PW1/C as prepared by IO ASI Rajesh. First and foremost, it is to be stated that the site plan seems to have been prepared by the IO in a very perfunctory manner, without disclosing the actual state of affairs as seen by him at the spot. Nowhere does the site plan Ex.PW1/C shows the name of the road or the moment of the traffic. Mark A is stated as the point where accused was instructed to stop his vehicle while Mark B is stated as the point from where the accused took U-turn, while Mark C is sated as the point where the accused was ultimately apprehended.
49. At this stage it is further pertinent to state in here that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan vs State (NCT of Delhi) FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 33 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:40 +0530 133 (2006) DLT 562 had laid down guidelines with regard to the investigation to be conducted in the offence of accident:
13.1. In most cases I find that the site plans are not produced.
Even the site plan that is produced is of a very unsatisfactory nature. It is, therefore, imperative that the investigating officer should be provided with maps of the roads drawn to scale so that accurate site plans can be produced in evidence for the appreciation of courts. The exact point of impact as well as tyre skid marks and the point at which the vehicles come to rest after the collision should be demarcated clearly. The observations with regard to the length of the tyre skid marks of the vehicles involved in the impact go a long way in indicating the speeds at which the vehicles were traveling. This would enable the courts to examine the evidence in a much more objective manner and the courts would not be faced with vague and subjective expressions such as high speed".
13.2. The mechanical inspection reports that are prepared are also, I find, in a majority of cases, of a very superficial and cursory nature. The inspection ought to be carried out by qualified personnel who are able to indicate in their reports the exact physical conditions of the vehicles. They should be able to point out with exactitude the damage suffered by the vehicles as a result of the impact. The mechanical inspection report should indicate all the telltale signs of the collision such as the paint of one vehicle rubbing off on the other. It should also indicate as to whether the vehicles were mechanically sound or not prior to the impact so as to enable the court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the collision took place due to human rashness or negligence or mechanical failure beyond human control.
13.3. As a rule, photographs ought to be taken not only of the vehicles involved in the collision but also of the site and surrounding areas so that the exact topography can be easily discerned by courts.
13.4. The prevalent weather conditions must be noted by the investigating officer. This would go to establish as to whether the road was slippery due to rain; whether there was poor visibility due to fog or mist etc. 13.5. Furthermore, the path of movement of the vehicles must be sought to be established in the course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt as in the present case.
13.6. The drivers of the vehicle involved must also be subjected to tests to reveal whether they had consumed any intoxicants.
FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 34 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:55 +0530 13.7. Proper investigation of such accidents would go a long way in aiding the criminal justice system in convicting those who are guilty and acquitting those who are innocent. A shoddy investigation will only point in one direction and that is in the acquittal of all whether they are guilty or whether they are innocent. Because, no criminal court would (and ought not to) convict any person merely on the basis of conjectures, assumptions, probabilities. All elements of subjectivity need to be eliminated and the investigation should be such that, when a charge sheet is filed, the court is presented with a case which when taken objectively would lead to the inescapable conclusion that a conviction is maintainable.
19. The site plan so placed on record is neither scaled site plan nor is proved by the prosecution. Furthermore, no photographs of the surrounding sites has been taken and placed on record by IO.
As such the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that alleged accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of accused."
50. Therefore, it is clear that the site plan Ex.PW1/C is not prepared as per the guidelines and it is nowhere highlighting the correct state of affairs of the incident in question. Neither the site plan mentions any skid marks or the marks made by rim of the offending vehicle as it is natural that any vehicle moving without tyre is bound to make some mark on the road. The naka as manned by the CISF personnel is not clearly highlighted nor the distance between the two nakas has been mentioned. The presence of other vehicle especially the taxies has not been highlighted. The absence of such detail on the site plan raises doubt over the prosecution case as the same seems to be prepared not at the spot but merely as per the complaint of the complainant.
51. Further, the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle Ex.PW10/E was prepared showcasing the damages which matches with the damages seen in the photographs Ex.P1 (colly). However, no damage report or the photographs of the barricade naka which was allegedly hit by offending vehicle was prepared/ FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 35 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:47 +0530 obtained which again seen in the conjunction that CCTV footage was also not obtained raises doubt over entire prosecution case.
52. The ocular testimony of the complainant/ PW1 alongwith other CISF staff does not inspire confidence in absence of other vital piece of evidence which though were available but never procured by investigating agency. It is pertinent to note that the spot of the incident was admittedly under surveillance through CCTV cameras operating 24×7. Despite the availability of such vital electronic evidence, the investigating agency neither procured nor produced the relevant footage to substantiate the prosecution version. Further, there is no material on record to show that any damage occurred to the nearby vehicles or barricades which, as per the alleged manner of incident, would have been a natural consequence. No independent public witness from the locality was examined to support the prosecution case. These omissions create a serious dent in the credibility of the investigation and render the prosecution story doubtful. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt before any onus can be shifted upon the accused. In the absence of such cogent and reliable evidence, the benefit of doubt necessarily accrues to the accused. There is not even an iota of material to show that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly or negligently.
53. In the present case, despite the identity of the driver of the offending vehicle being established, Prosecution has failed to discharge the onus on proving the rash and negligent act of the accused before it can shift the burden on to the other party.
FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 36 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:42 +0530 Several reasonable doubts have emerged in the narrative put forth by prosecution as analysed hereinabove. The basic ingredients of Section 279 IPC has not been proved.
54. The third set of allegations against the accused person is qua offence under section 185/190 MV Act. Accused has been charged under section 185 Motor Vehicle Act with the allegation that he was found drunk at the time of alleged incident.
55. For proving the said offence prosecution examined IO PW11 Inspector Kedar Yadav, who tendered FSL result dated 24.10.2019 Ex.PW11/D, which is the examination report as prepared by FSL Rohini, New Delhi containing one sealed parcel of reddish coloured liquid volume 2ml stated to be the blood sample of accused collected vide the MLC no.808882. Perusal of the said MLC which is Ex. PW12/A which was conducted on 26.07.2019 time 6:19 am after accused was taken to safdurjung hospital by QRT staff Ct. Ramraj as stated by IO PW10 ASI Rajesh, reveals that accused was medically examined and it is specifically noted that "smell of alcohol from mouth" whereupon serum alcohol level test was conducted upon the accused person.
56. Interestingly, there is no mentioning anywhere on the MLC that the blood sample of the accused was taken and the same was handed ovber the police personal which was subsequently sent to the FSL. As per the FSL result dated 24.10.2019 Ex.PW11/D, the sealed parcel having four seals of SJH was received in the FSL through Ct. Sandeep. IO PW10 merely stated in his testimony that Ct. Ram Raj handed over to him the blood sample which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/C. FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 37 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:41 +0530
57. It is the defence version of accused that he was made to drink alcohol after being apprehended by the police and when they asked for money whereafter he was beaten up. Before evaluating the version of the accused, prosecution has to establishes its allegation through material evidences.
58. In the present case, although the prosecution has relied upon the chemical analysis report showing presence of alcohol in the blood sample, the MLC of the accused/injured does not record any mention of blood sample being drawn at the time of medical examination. The omission of such a crucial procedural fact casts serious doubt on whether the alleged sample was ever taken, and if so, whether it pertained to the accused at all. In absence of any contemporaneous entry in the MLC or proof of sealing and forwarding of the sample, the chain of custody remains unestablished, rendering the test report wholly unreliable. In such a scenario, the FSL report stands unlinked and uncorroborated document which cannot be independently establish intoxication or guilt of accused.
59. Furthermore, accused has been charged under section 190 Motor Vehicle Act with the allegation that he drove the offending vehicle with one tyre missing which rendered the driving of the said vehicle in public place, a source of danger to complainant and other CISF officials.
60. Section 190 penalizes the use of a motor vehicle in circumstances that are unsafe, mechanically defective, or environmentally harmful, even if no accident has yet occurred. As discussed earlier in the preceding paragraphs that in the absence of corroborative evidence in the form of CCTV footage and lapses / FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 38 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:09:53 +0530 defective investigation conducted as observed in the site plan, the factum that the offending vehicle was being driven around on rim without tyre has not been conclusively established. Accordingly, the ingredients of Section 190 MV Act have not made out.
CONCLUSION
61. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offences u/S 186/353/279 IPC and u/S 185/190 MV Act and holds the accused not guilty for the commission of the said offence. Accused Jatin Kumar Verma S/o B. S. Verma is acquitted of the offences u/S 186/353/279 IPC and u/S 185/190 MV Act.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT on 01.11.2025 in the presence AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 of the accused. 15:10:22 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/01.11.2025 Note: - This judgment contains 39 pages and each page has been signed by me. Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.11.01 15:10:27 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/01.11.2025 FIR No. 94/2019, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Jatin Kumar Verma Page 39 of 39