Delhi District Court
State vs . Anoop Singh on 23 February, 2012
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK : MM-07:
DELHI
State VS. Anoop Singh
FIR No: 241/01
P. S. : Patel Nagar
U/s : 186/332 of Indian Penal Code
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case and : 933/II
Date of its institution : 09.10.2001
Name of the complainant : Sh.Rajender Singh
Date of Commission of offence : 23.04.2001
Name of the accuse : Anoop Singh
S/o Late Sh. Ram Kala
R/o House No. WZ-61, Shadi
Pur village, Patel Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained of : Under section186/332 of
Indian Penal Code
Plea of accused : Plead Not guilty
Final Order : Convicted
Date of Institution of Case : 09.10.2001
Judgment Reserved : 23.02.2012
Date of Judgment : 23.02.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. The present case was registered against accused Anoop Singh on the allegation that on 23.04.2001 at about 2:00 PM at/near House no.WZ-61, Shadipur Gaon, the accused voluntarily obstructed and caused hurt to complainant Rajender Singh a public servant in discharge of his public function i.e. distribution of DAK/Postal letters .
2. Charge sheet filed in the court and in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. copies of the documents were supplied. Thereafter charge Under State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 1 of 8 -:2:- Section 186/332 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused on 07.10.2004 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
4. PW1 Rajinder Singh deposed that on 23.04.2001 he was posted as Postman in post office Patel Nagar . He deposed that on that day he was on his duty of delivering one registered post in the name of Om Parkash and when he enquired about Om Parkash he came to know that nobody of this name live in the locality. He further stated that on the registered post in the name of Om Parkash it was written C/o Anup Singh . Thereafter he reached WZ-61 and enquired about Om parkash and then asked for Anup Singh and shouted in the name of Anup Singh thereafter Anup Singh came out of his house with a boy and grabbed him from his collar and kicked him from back, slapped and dragged him and caused him to lie and hit him by bricks and his index finger of left hand was torn and his knees were broken and he sustained injury on his head also. His shirt was drenched with blood . In the meantime Postman Sat Narain reached at the spot and tried to save him . Police reached at the spot . Site plan Ex.PW1/B was prepared , registered letter on which C/o Anup Singh was written which he had gone to deliver on the day of incidence was taken by police vide memo Ex.PW1/C. Accused was arrested.
In his cross examination he admitted that on the registry ''care of Anup Singh'' was written . He also admitted that House number of Anup Singh was not mentioned on the registry. He further stated that there were about 150/200 on lookers and the family members of accused at the time of quarrel.
5. PW2 Satya Narain Singh deposed that on 23.04.2001 he was posted as postman at Patel Nagar Post office and was on duty in Shadipur Village, Beat no.16 and at about 2.30/3:00 PM when he reached Post office he came to know that Rajender had been taken to hospital as he had received some injuries in some quarrel in the area but he had not State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 2 of 8 -:3:- seen the incident. Ld. APP cross examined the witness as he was resiling from his previous statement. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he met Rajender Singh in the area of Beat no. 16, on the date of incident. He further denied the suggestion that he had seen Anup Singh fighting or beating Rajender Singh. He denied the suggestion that accused Anup Singh had threatened him when he intervened to save his colleague Rajender Singh.
6. PW3 Ct.Sita Ram deposed that on 23.04.2001 on receipt of DD no.18 A he alongwith SI Jagpal Singh reached at 2401, Gali no.19, Shadipur, Delhi where complainant Rajender met him on the way and stated about the incident to the SI. He got conducted the medical examination of Rajender Singh at RML hospital. Rukka was prepared and handed over to him for registration of FIR. He got the FIR registered and returned back to the spot . Site plan was prepared. The accused Anup Singh , present in the court, came out from house no.WZ-61 and was identified complainant as the assailant. Accused was apprehended and interrogated. The pant and shirt and one registry and one list of register of the complainant were seized by the IO.
In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that complainant stated to them about the incident when he met them on the way. He stated that no brick, stone or stick was recovered from the spot.
7. PW4 HC Jai Singh deposed that on 23.04.2001 he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Patel Nagar . He received rukka from SI Jagpal and on the basis of which he registered the FIR vide Ex.PW4/A.
8. PW 5 Sh.S.R.Sharma deposed that on the date of incident i.e. 23.04.2001 he was posted at Posted as Post Master Patel Nagar Post Officer and at about 2:30 PM he was informed on telephone that Rajinder Singh postman had been beaten and he had received injuries by stone and he lodged a complaint in his official duty vide Ex.PW5/A. In his cross examination he stated that the complaint in the court was filed on 12.06.2001. He stated that the postman informed him at State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 3 of 8 -:4:- about 2:30 PM. He stated that they duty of the postman begins at 10:00 AM and continue till the time he reports after delivery of the articles.
9. PW6 Sh.Surender Singh Record Clerk, RML Hospital deposed that Dr.Anil Tajeha has sent him. He stated that he can identify the signatures of Dr.Anil Taneja and Dr.Sumit Singhal on the MLC. He further deposed that Dr.Sumit Singhal had left the services from the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known.
10. PW7 Retd. S.I.Jag Pal Singh deposed that on 23.04.2001 on receipt of DD no.18 A he alongwith Ct.Sita Ram reached at Gali no.19, Shadipur Village where he saw that one person was coming in injured condition and the said person met him and he stated himself as Post Man and stated his name as Rajender Singh. The injured was got medically examined. He recorded the statement of injured and prepared rukka Ex.PW7/A and got registered the FIR. Thereafter he alongwith injured and Ct.Sita Ram went to spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW7/B . The injured Rajender Singh handed over to him his Khaki Colour Pant and one shirt on both of which blood was present. He stated that the said shirt was in torned condition and its button were broken alongwith Registry list in which entry of 34 registries/letters were entered and on which Beat no.16 and name of Rajender Singh was mentioned and also one photocopy of registry on which C/o Anoop Singh , R/o 2401/A Gali no.19 , Shadipur , West Patel Nagar, Delhi was mentioned, the same were seized. He arrested and personally searched the accused . At the same time one postman namely Satya Narayan came there and he stated himself to be the eye-witness of the present case. He recorded his statement.
In his cross examination he stated that aforesaid injured told him that acused Anoop Singh had beaten me with fist and kick blows and also with brick. He stated that when injured Rajender Singh met him 2-3 public persons were present in the said street near House no.WZ-61, Shadipur and they were present outside their houses but he did not record their names and addresses.
State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 4 of 8 -:5:-11. PW8 Deen Dayal , Record Clerk , RML hospital deposed that on 23.04.2011 he had seen the MLC Ex.PW6/B prepared by Dr.G.Ghosh, Senior Resident. He stated that he can identify the signatures of Dr.G.Ghosh as he had seen him writing and signing in the official capacity. He further deposed that Dr.G.Ghosh had left the services from the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known.
In his cross examination he stated that he can only identify signature and handwriting of Dr.G.Ghosh.
12. After recording the evidence of these witness, the prosecution evidence was closed. The accused Anoop Singh was examined under the provision of section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence were put to him where he denied the allegations raised against him and he choose not to lead defence evidence.
13. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and counsel for accused and perused the record.
14. It is argued by the Ld. APP for State that the case has been proved against the accused persons and there are no contradictions and dents in the testimony of witnesses and in view of the same there is no impediment in convicting the accused persons.
15. On the other hand it has been argued by the defence counsel that Post Man Rajender Singh was not at duty at the time of incident and Section 186/332 IPC is not made out as hurt is not proved .
16. I have heard submissions of both the Ld.Counsel and Ld.APP for State and perused the records of the case.
17. The accused is charged with two offences. I will deal with all of them one by one. I come to the offence u/s 186 Indian Penal Code . Section 186 Indian Penal Code read as under:
Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 5 of 8 -:6:- extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
At this stage, a reference to Section 195 Cr.P.C. is also essential as Sction 195 Cr.P.C. laid down that no court shall take cognizance of any offnece punishable U/S 172 to 188 ( both inclusive) of the IPC except on the complaint in wiring of the public servant , concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
18. In the present case, prosecution has produced and examined PW5 Sh.R.S.Sharma Tetd. Post Master to prove the complaint U/S 195 Cr.P.C. The complaint U/S 195 Cr.P.C. is Ex.PW5/A. Perusal of Ex.PW5/A clearly shows that the said compaint was made to the court infact the subject of ____ reads permission U/S 195 Cr.P.C. Even in the last paragraph of Ex.PW5/A it is mentioned that permission U/S 195 Cr.P.C. is granted to take the cognizance of the case by the court. The alleged permission Under Section 195 Cr.P.C. as envisaged by the said legal provision. Thus Ex.PW5/A falls within four corners of a complaint as postulated by U/S 195 Cr.P.C. in the eyes of law.
In these circumstances, prosecution has established all the ingredients of offence U/s 186 of Indian Penal Code.
19. Regarding the offence u/s 332 Indian Penal Code, it says that;
Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty-Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
20. Here, it is important to make out that hurt U/S 332 IPC was to deter public servant from discharge of his public duty. Agrrieved was medically examined but it is not always possible to make out hurt in State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 6 of 8 -:7:- medical examination. Although it is not supported by medical examination of report of victim, it can be inferred that act of accused by attacking Rajender Singh grabbed him from his collar and kicked him from back, slapped and dragged him and caused him to lye and hit him by bricks and his index finger of left hand was torn and his knee were broken and he sustained injuries on head also , must have caused voluntarily hurt though not visible. The guilt of accused is established by testimony of witnesses. PW 7 Retd. SI Jag Pal Singh deposed that on 23.04.2001 on receipt of DD no.18 A he alongwith Ct.Sita Ram reached at Gali no.19, Shadipur Village where he saw that one person was coming in injured condition and the said person met him and he stated himself as Post Man and stated his name as Rajender Singh. He further stated that injured Rajender Singh handed over to him his Khaki Colour Pant and one shirt on both of which blood was present. He stated that the said shirt was in torned condition and its button were broken PW 5 Sh.S.Sharma the Post Master deposed that on 23.04.2001 at about 2:30 PM he was informed on telephone that Rajender Singh postman had been beaten and he had received injuries by stone.
21. Ld.Counsel argued that MLC is not proved. Here the injured was medically examined. Even if MLC is not proved , it is proved that the victim was hit by stones which must have caused him hurt and for Section 332 IPC no visible injury is required. Thus the guilt of accused persons is established by testimony of witnesses that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to deter the injured public servant from his duty. In these circumstances, prosecution has established all the ingredients of offence U/s 332 of Indian Penal Code.
22. During the course of the arguments, Ld. Defence counsel contended that despite presence of public persons no public witness was examined but only police officials and Postman Satya Narain were examined. However, I do not agree with this contention raised by the Ld.Defence counsel. The defence of non joining of public witnesses is not State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 7 of 8 -:8:- worthy of credit . The is the defence taken by all the accused in siminal nature of offences which occurs in public places. But one cannot be oblivious of the fact that there is a glaring prevalence of the fact in the society that independent witness are not forthcoming to assist the investigation agency for various reasons such as terror by the accused, danger to their life and property on behalf of the accused, harassment at the investigation stage, repeated adjournments in the courts. Therefore, merely because the prosecution has failed to examine so called independent witness would be no ground to discard the evidence of prosecution.
23. In view of my above discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt and accordingly the accused Anup Singh is convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 186/332 of Indian Penal code .
Announced in the Open Court ( Purshotam Pathak)
today on the 23rd February 2012 MM-07, Central, Delhi
State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 8 of 8