Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Rahul on 4 October, 2023

       IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI PAREWA, CHIEF
     METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
              KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI.




Case No. 6232/2021
FIR No. 579/2021
PS: Jyoti Nagar
U/s 186/353/332 IPC
State Vs. Rahul




Date of Institution of case                    :         24.11.2021
Date of Reserving Judgment                     :         14.09.2023
Date of Judgment                               :         04.10.2023




                                  JUDGMENT:

a)      Date of offence                        :         25.09.2021

b)      Offence complained of                  :         U/s 186/353/332 IPC

c)      Name of Accused, his                   :         Rahul
        parentage & residence                            S/o Sh. Joginder
                                                         R/o Ram Park, Loni Border,
                                                         Gaziabad, U.P.

d)      Plea of Accused                        :         Pleaded not guilty

e)      Final order                            :         Convicted




FIR No. 579/2021      State Vs. Rahul   PS Jyoti Nagar      Page No. 1 of 11
              BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:­

1. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.09.2021, at about 12.20 p.m., service road, Mahindra Showroom, Ashok Nagar, Main Wazirabad Road, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar, accused Rahul voluntarily obstructed the police official namely Ct. Rohit Kumar from discharging his official duty and gave beatings to him and also caused simple injuries to him. After usual investigation chargesheet for the offences punishable under Section 186/353/332 IPC was filed.

2. The Court took cognizance of the above­said offences U/s 186/353/332 IPC and provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C was complied. After hearing arguments, as a prime facie case was made out against the accused Rahul for offence punishable u/s 186/353/332 IPC, charge was accordingly framed against him to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In Prosecution Evidence, the Prosecution had examined 07 witnesses.

3.1. PW­1 HC Rohit (Victim/Injured) ­ deposed that on 25.09.2021, he along with HC Naseem Ahmad and Ct. Kapil on the information of theft and snatching by the order of senior officer reached at service road, Ashok Nagar, near Mahindra Showroom, Main Wazirabad Road, Delhi in civil dress and started checking vehicles and during checking at about 12.20 pm, they saw that one person was coming on motorcycle bearing registration No. DL­5S­BL­2055 from the Loni Gol FIR No. 579/2021 State Vs. Rahul PS Jyoti Nagar Page No. 2 of 11 Chakkar and on suspicion, said motorcycle was stopped by police staff and enquired about the paper of vehicle and upon enquiry suspected tried to escape from the spot. PW­1 further deposed that he caught hold said vehicle from the rear side of the motorcycle and tried to stop the accused and during the same, the alleged person attacked upon him with blade on his left as well as right hand due to which blood started oozing out of his both hands and thereafter, HC Naseem and Ct. Kapil apprehended the said person with the help of public persons and on enquiry accused revealed his name as Rahul. Public persons have given serious beatings to the alleged accused person at the spot. PW­1 went to the GTB hospital for the medical treatment with the help of public person and after medical examination, he came back to PS where accused was present. IO/SI Rajbir recorded statement of PW­1/HC as EX PW1/A and thereafter, PW­1 along with IO/SI Rajbir reached at the spot where IO prepared site plan at his instance EX PW1/B. Thereafter, accused was arrested and personally searched by IO vide memos EX PW1/C and EX PW1/D and disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW1/E was recorded by the IO. IO also recorded supplementary statement of PW­1 at PS. PW­ 1/HC Rohit correctly identified the accused before the Court.

In cross­examination by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel, this witness deposed that they reached at the spot at about 12.05 p.m. and prior to the incident, they have checked 3­4 vehicles and only he has caught hold the vehicle of the accused from rear side and on holding the motorcycle, accused fell from the motorcycle on road. This witness was unable to tell the name of public persons who gathered at the spot or who took him to FIR No. 579/2021 State Vs. Rahul PS Jyoti Nagar Page No. 3 of 11 GTB hospital. Further he deposed that he alongwith IO reached at the spot between 06.0­07.00 p.m. This witness denied to the suggestions that he was not performing duty of vehicle checking at the spot or that he is deposing falsely at the instance of IO.

3.2 PW­2 ASI Naseem Ahmed (eye witness) - deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW­1/HC Rohit. PW­2 also deposed that on the complaint of HC Rohit, IO SI Rajbir prepared rukka and got the FIR registered and seized the motorcycle of accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/F and they also went to the spot and searched for the blade used by the accused, but same could not be traced. PW­2 correctly identified the accused before the Court.

In cross­examination by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel, this witness deposed that they reached at the spot at about 12.05 p.m. and prior to the incident, they have checked 3­4 vehicles and only Ct. Rohit has caught hold the vehicle of the accused from rear side and on holding the motorcycle, accused fell from the motorcycle on road. This witness was unable to tell the name of public persons who gathered at the spot or who took the injured Ct. Rohit to GTB hospital. This witness admitted that they were supposed to be in Uniform while performing duty however he voluntarily said that they were on 24 hours duty as and when directed by the Senior Officer and they had to perform duty in Civil Dress. He further admitted that public persons were not examined and blade could not be recovered from the spot. This witness denied to the suggestions that he was not performing duty of vehicle checking at the spot or that accused never harmed police persons that is why blade could FIR No. 579/2021 State Vs. Rahul PS Jyoti Nagar Page No. 4 of 11 not be recovered from the spot.

3.3 PW­3 HC Kapil Kumar (eye witness)- deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW­1/HC Rohit and PW­2/ASI Naseem Ahmed. PW­3 correctly identified the accused before the Court.

In cross­examination, this witness admitted that spot was surrounded with residential houses, public persons whoever available at the spot were not examined and no blade was recovered from the spot. This witness was unable to tell the DD number vide which they were performing petrolling duty.

3.4 PW­3 HC Praveen (hereinafter be read as PW­3A to avoid confusion)­ deposed that on 25.09.2021, Duty Officer of PS concerned handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to him and thereafter, he went to the spot handed over the same to SI Rajbir Singh.

In cross­examination, this witness deposed that Duty Officer handed over the rukka to him at 12.00 midnight however he is unable to depose the exact time when he reached at the spot. He further deposed that many public persons were also present at the spot alongwith IO SI Rajbir Singh and accused. He further deposed that he alongwith IO SI Rajbir Singh returned back to PS at around 12.30 midnight. This witness denied to the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation alongwith IO or that he is deposing falsely at the instance of IO.

3.5 PW­4 SI Rajbir Singh (Investigating Officer) - deposed that on 25.09.2021, at about 4:30 pm, HC Patil handed over him FIR No. 579/2021 State Vs. Rahul PS Jyoti Nagar Page No. 5 of 11 DD NO.50A, Ex.PW3/A and MLC No. A1954/21 pertaining to injured Rohit Kumar s/o Ravinder Singh for further proceedings and after, 10­15 minutes, HC Naseem Ahmad and Ct. Kapil handed over him motorcycle bearing registration No. DL5SBL2055 make of Splendor and custody of accused Rahul s/o Joginder at PS. Thereafter, he sent Ct. Kapil at the house of owner of the said motorcycle at about 5:30 pm, who came back at the PS at about 10:00 pm and disclose him that the owner of the said motorcycle is residing at DLF, Ghaziabad and said motorcycle was stolen from the PS Sahibabad. Thereafter, PW­ 4 seized the said motorcycle u/s 102 Cr.PC, Ex.PW1/F, recorded statement of Ct. Rohit Ex.PW1/A and prepared rukka Ex.PW3/B. Rukka was handed over to DO for the registration of FIR. After that, PW­4 alongwith HC Naseem Ahmad, Ct. Rohit and Ct. Kapil and accused reached at the spot, i.e. Service Road, Near Mahendra Showroom, Wazirabad Road, Ashok Nagar, Delhi and prepared site plan at instance of Ct. Rohit Ex.PW1/B and in the meantime, Ct. Parveen came at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. They searched the weapons of offence, i.e. blade, but in vain and thereafter, they came back at PS and on next day, i.e. 26.09.2021, accused Rahul was arrested and personally search vide arrest memo and search memo Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. PW­4 got the accused medically examined from GTB Hospital and after that accused was put behind the lock­up of the PS. PW­4 recorded statement of witnesses and made request for sanction u/s 195 Cr.PC from the superior officer vide request application Ex. PW4/C and prepared the charge­sheet. PW­4 correctly identified the accused present before the court.

FIR No. 579/2021 State Vs. Rahul PS Jyoti Nagar Page No. 6 of 11 In cross­examination, this witness deposed that when he reached at the spot, no public person were available as it was mid­night, no CCTV camera installed at the spot, no case property i.e. blade was recovered during the course of investigation. This witness denied to the suggestion that all the proceedings were conducted by him while sitting in PS or accused was falsely implicated in the present case or he is deposing falsely.

3.6 PW­5 Dr. Deepak Patel - deposed that on 25.09.2021, Rohit Kumar was medically examined by Dr. Dhananjay, Junior Resident under his supervision and the MLC No. A/1954/44/2021 of above­said Rohit Kumar was prepared by Dr. Dhananjay, who had already left the GTB Hospital and his whereabouts is not known to the Hospital. This witness proved the above said MLC as Ex.PW5/A, bearing his name at point A and identified signature of Dr. Dhananjay at point B. In cross­examination, PW­5 deposed that it is possible for any person to inflict injury on his right or left elbow.

3.7 PW­6 Dr. Yashawanth T.M. ­ deposed that on 25.09.2021, as per the notes in the MLC register bearing No. A/1954/44/2021, as per the nature of injury no. 1, 2, 3 & 4, he had given his opinion on the said MLC Ex. PW5/A is simple in nature of the patient namely Rohit Kumar s/o Ravinder Singh, 34 year male.

This witness was not cross­examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.

FIR No. 579/2021 State Vs. Rahul PS Jyoti Nagar Page No. 7 of 11 3.8 PW­7 ASI Patil Kumar­ on 25.09.2021, this witness obtained the MLC of injured Rohit Kumar from GTB hospital on the information received from DO at about 02.40 pm regarding preparation of MLC no. bearing No. A1954/44/21, vide DD No.50A.

In cross­examination, this witness deposed that he reached at the GTB hospital at about 03.00 p.m. and met the injured Rohit and came back to PS alongwith injured Rohit at about 03.30 p.m. This witness was unable to disclosed if MLC of accused was prepared at the above said hospital.

4. It is pertinent to note that vide separate statement dated 17.07.2023 u/s 294 Cr.P.C., accused has admitted factum of registration of FIR Ex. A1, certificate U/s 65B of DO as Ex. A2 and complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. of SHO PS Jyoti Nagar as Ex. A3. In view of the said admission, prosecution witnesses qua these documents were dropped.

5. After conclusion of Prosecution Evidence, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 08.08.2023.

6. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 17.08.2023 wherein accused denied all the allegations and stated that he does not express any desire to lead evidence in his defence. Accordingly, Defence Evidence was closed.

7. This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused and FIR No. 579/2021 State Vs. Rahul PS Jyoti Nagar Page No. 8 of 11 has perused the case record meticulously.

8. In order to prove the guilt of the accused u/s 186/353/332 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the commission of offence as defined in Section 186/353/332 IPC.

Section 186 IPC provides punishment for obstructing public servant in discharge of his public functions.

Section 353 IPC provide punishment for using assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.

Lastly, Section 332 IPC deals with voluntarily causing simple injury to public servant in discharge of his public functions.

8. The common thread running between Section 186 IPC, 353 IPC and 332 IPC is that the offence should have been committed against public official when the official was discharging his official duties as a public servant. So it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the complainant was discharging his official duties as a public servant when the accused committed offences with which he is charged in the present case.

9. In the present case, PW­1/complainant has specifically deposed that on 25.09.2021, he was checking the vehicles during the course of his official duty and at about 12.20 p.m., accused came on motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 5S BL 2055 from Loni Gol Chakkar and on suspicion when police FIR No. 579/2021 State Vs. Rahul PS Jyoti Nagar Page No. 9 of 11 official asked for papers of vehicle, the accused tried to flee from the spot upon which complainant/PW­1 HC Rohit caught hold the vehicle of accused from rear side and tried to stop the accused and during the same period, accused attacked upon him with blade on his left as well as right hand due to which blood started oozing out from both of his hands.

10. Further, PW­2/ASI Naseem Ahmed and PW­3/HC Kapil Kumar also disclosed the same facts and stated that on the information of theft and snatching by the order of Senior Officer, they alongwith PW­1/HC Rohit reached at Service road, Delhi in Civil dress and started checking vehicles. In cross­examination of these witnesses by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel nothing incriminating or contradictory have come on record with respect to the fact that PW­1/complainant/HC Rohit was performing his official duty at the time of commission of offence or that accused has obstructed the complainant while performing his duty by assaulting the complainant with a blade. No material discrepancy has come on record during their testimony. However, the weapon of offence i.e. blade was not recovered at the spot. Hence, from the testimony of PW­1, PW­2 & PW­3, it was duly proved that at the time of commission of offence, PW­ 1/complainant/HC Rohit was discharging public function/his duty when the accused assaulted him and obstructed the complainant from performing his duty.

11. Further, from the MLC Ex.PW5/A on record is duly proved that on account of assault of accused upon the complainant, he received simple injury. This corroborates the testimony of FIR No. 579/2021 State Vs. Rahul PS Jyoti Nagar Page No. 10 of 11 aforesaid witnesses. Thus, all the ingredients of commission of offence against public official when the official was discharging his official duties as a public servant is satisfied in the present case. Consequently, the accused Rahul S/o Jogindar is found guilty for the said offence and is accordingly, stands convicted for the offence punishable U/s 186/353/332 IPC.

Copy of judgment be given dasti to the convict free of cost.

Announced in the Open Court on 04.10.2023 (Preeti Parewa) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

Certified that this judgment contains 11 pages and each page bears my signature.

(PREETI PAREWA) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

FIR No. 579/2021 State Vs. Rahul PS Jyoti Nagar Page No. 11 of 11