Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/66167/2016 on 9 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Raj Kumar & Anr.
FIR No. 171/2000
PS Paschim Vihar
U/s 186/353/332/506/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
Case No. : 66167/16
Date of Institution : 22.06.2001
Date of Commission of Offence : 14.03.2000
Name of the complainant : P. C. Suman
S/o Rohan Lal Suman
R/o H. No. 100, Ambika Vihar,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
Name & address of the accused : A-1 Raj Kumar
S/o Savaliya
R/o RZ-6, Sayyed Nangloi,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
A-2 Sheesh Pal
S/o Late Pratap Singh
R/o RZ-15, Sayyed Nangloi,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 186/353/332/506/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted.
Date on which reserved for judgment : 23.07.2016
Date of announcing of judgment : 09.08.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
State v. Raj Kumar & Anr. U/s 186/353/332/506/34 IPC
FIR No. 171/2000 PS Paschim Vihar 1/10
1. Vide this judgment this court shall decide the present case under Section 186/353/332/506/34 Indian Penal Code.
2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 14.03.2000, the complainant P. C. Suman, Superintendent, Meter Testing Department along with C. B. Sharma (J.E), Budh Ram (Junior Lineman) and Dhani Ram (Senior Lineman), had gone to Sayyed Nangloi village for meter checking. When they were checking the meter, a quarrel took place and the accused persons started slapping and beating the complainant with fists and also threatened the team. Thus, the accused persons are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 186/353/332/506/34 IPC.
3. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out. Charge sheet was filed against the accused persons in the court. Copy of chargesheet and other documents were supplied to the accused and thereafter charge under u/s 186/353/332/506/34 IPC was framed against them vide order dated 29.10.2004 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses i.e (1) P. C. Suman (2) Budh Ram (3) C. B. Sharma (4) Retired ASI Ram Niwas (5) Retired Assistant Enginner N. S. Pandey (6) Retired SI O. P. Rohila (7) HC Rajesh Kumar.
5. PW-1 P. C. Suman deposed that on 14.03.2000, he was superintendent at meter testing department, DESU. He along with C. B. Sharma JE, Budh Ram State v. Raj Kumar & Anr. U/s 186/353/332/506/34 IPC FIR No. 171/2000 PS Paschim Vihar 2/10 Junior Lineman, and Dhani Ram Senior Lineman had gone for meter checking in Sayyed Village, Nangloi. When they were checking the meter, a quarrel took place between the accused Shishpal and his companions and their team. He identified the accused Shishpal as one of the assailants. The identity of the accused Raj Kumar is not disputed. He deposed that the accused persons had hit him and threatened to kill him. His statement as recorded by the police is Ex.PW1/A. They gave a written complaint to the police which is Ex.PW3/B.
6. During cross examination, PW-1 stated that he could not tell the exact date due to lapse of time. He deposed that lot of crowd had gathered there. He denied the suggestion that no manhandling had taken place. However, he admitted that at that time, he could not see the persons who had attacked him from behind and right hand back side. Their names were revealed during enquiry. He stated that IO had not recorded the statement of any public person in his presence. He had gone to PS Paschim Vihar to lodge his complaint. He admitted that all the documents were prepared at the police station. He admitted that he came to know about the accused persons from the crowd gathered there. He admitted that he could not identify the accused persons at the time of incident.
7. PW-2 Budh Ram deposed that on 14.03.2000 he was posted as Lineman at Janakpuri MTD. He had accompanied P.C.Suman to Sayyed Nangloi village for meter checking. At about 1.00-2.00 p.m, the accused persons came out and State v. Raj Kumar & Anr. U/s 186/353/332/506/34 IPC FIR No. 171/2000 PS Paschim Vihar 3/10 asked P.C.Suman why they were roaming in the area. Some other persons also came out and started threatening them with dire consequences. However, he failed to identify the accused persons, stating that a mob was present there. The witness was declared to be hostile by the Ld. APP and he was cross examined under Section 154 Indian Evidence Act. He denied the suggestion given by the APP that accused persons had hit the complainant in his presence or threatened them not to return and check the meter.
8. PW-3 C.B. Sharma, Junior Engineer in Zone-1150, GH-9, Sunder Vihar had also accompanied P.C. Suman, Budh Ram and Dhani Ram to Sayyed Village on date of incident. At about 2.00 p.m, accused persons came out and asked P.C.Suman why they were roaming in the area. Some other persons also came out and started threatening them with dire consequences. This witness could also not identify the accused persons as the matter was 15 years old.
9. PW-4 Retired ASI Ram Niwas deposed that on 14.03.2000 he had registered the present FIR on the basis of rukka sent by SI Om Prakash Rohilla through Ct. Rajesh. Same is Ex.PW4/A and his endorsement on rukka is Ex.PW4/B. PW-2, 3 and 4 were not cross examined by the accused persons.
10. PW-5 Retired Assistant Engineer N.S. Pandey had given the complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C against the accused persons which is Ex.PW5/A. During cross examination, he admitted that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident and he is deposing on the basis of the record.
State v. Raj Kumar & Anr. U/s 186/353/332/506/34 IPC
FIR No. 171/2000 PS Paschim Vihar 4/10
11. PW-6 Retired SI O.P. Rohilla deposed that on 14.03.2000, he reached the spot along with Ct. Rajesh on receiving DD No.18B. The complainant and his staff were present there. He narrated the incident of beating by the accused persons. He recorded the statement of complainant and prepared the rukka Ex.PW6/A. Rukka was handed over to Ct. Rajesh for registration of FIR. After sometime Ct. Rajesh returned along with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over to the witness. Witness prepared the site plan Ex.PW6/B. Accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D respectively. Witness again deposed that the accused persons were arrested on 23.03.2000 vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW6/F respectively. He had prepared the charge-sheet.
12. During cross examination, PW-6 stated that the accused persons were not present at the spot when he reached there. All the documents were prepared at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation in a fair and proper manner. He admitted that arrest memo Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW6/F did not bear his signature or that of any witness. He also admitted that the arrest memo was not filed along with charge-sheet nor the same is mentioned in the list of witnesses and that the same were in police file. He admitted that PW6/E did not bear the signature of the accused.
13. PW-7 HC Rajesh Kumar corroborated the testimony of PW-6. He had taken the rukka to PS Paschim Vihar and got the FIR registered. He returned to the spot State v. Raj Kumar & Anr. U/s 186/353/332/506/34 IPC FIR No. 171/2000 PS Paschim Vihar 5/10 along with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed it over to the IO. Thereafter, he took the complainant to DDU hospital for medical examination.
14. During cross examination, PW-7 stated that the IO recorded the statement of complainant at the spot. Complainant had not came to the police station for making a complaint.
15. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused persons was recorded wherein they denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. Accused persons did not lead any evidence in defence.
16. I have heard the submissions addressed by the Learned APP for state and the Learned Counsel for accused persons and carefully perused the record.
17. The Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. PW-1, who is the main complainant has failed to identify the accused persons, stating that he had not seen them at the time of assault. Secondly, both PW-2 and PW-3 have turned hostile and failed to support the story of the prosecution. Further, the MLC of the injured has not been proved as the doctor who had prepared the same has not been examined by the prosecution.
18. On the other hand, Ld. APP has submitted that PW-1 has duly identified the accused persons and fully corroborated the story of the prosecution. Hence, the accused persons are liable to convicted.
19. Let us first examine the relevant provisions of law. Section 186 IPC prescribes State v. Raj Kumar & Anr. U/s 186/353/332/506/34 IPC FIR No. 171/2000 PS Paschim Vihar 6/10 a punishment of imprisonment up to three months or fine which may extend to Rs.500/- or both, for causing obstruction to any public person in discharge of his public functions.
20. Section 332 IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under this Section are:-
1. Voluntarily causing hurt to any person being a public servant in discharge of his duty as such public servant.
2. There should be an intention to prevent that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty or in consequences of anything done or admitted to be done by that person in lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant.
21. Section 353 IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging of his duty. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under this Section are:-
1. Voluntarily causing assault or criminal force to any person being a public servant in discharge of his duty as such public servant.
2. There should be an intention to prevent that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty or in consequences of anything done or admitted to be done by that person in lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant.
State v. Raj Kumar & Anr. U/s 186/353/332/506/34 IPC FIR No. 171/2000 PS Paschim Vihar 7/10
22. Section 506 Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for cirminal intimidation. The offence of Criminal intimidation has been defined under Section 503 IPC. Same is reproduced verbatim as under:-
"Section 503 IPC Criminal Intimidation- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation: A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
23. In the case at hand, the star witness of the prosecution is PW-1 P.C. Suman being the complainant. This witness has corroborated the prosecution story and has specifically stated that the accused persons assaulted him and threatened to kill him. However, during cross examination, he admitted that at the time of manhandling, he could not see the persons who had attacked him from behind and from right hand back side. He also admitted that their names were revealed later on upon enquiry. He also admitted that he could not identify the accused State v. Raj Kumar & Anr. U/s 186/353/332/506/34 IPC FIR No. 171/2000 PS Paschim Vihar 8/10 persons at the time of incident and he had came to know about their names from the crowd gathered there. No public person who had told the complainant about the names of the accused persons or who identified the accused persons as the assailants have been examined by the prosecution. Hence, the identity of the accused persons has not been duly proved as the complainant himself has admitted that he had not seen the assailants at the time of the incident.
24. PW-2 and PW-3 who were present at the spot along with PW-1 have also failed to identify the accused persons. PW-2 deposed that he could not identify the accused persons as there was a mob gathered there, while PW-3 could not identify them due to lapse of time. Hence, the court is of the considered opinion that the identity of the accused persons has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
25. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefits of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
State v. Raj Kumar & Anr. U/s 186/353/332/506/34 IPC
FIR No. 171/2000 PS Paschim Vihar 9/10
26. In the case at hand, the very identity of the accused persons has not been duly established. Hence, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused Raj Kumar and Shish Pal are acquitted under Section 186/353/332/506/34 Indian Penal Code.
27. Accused persons are admitted to bail on their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each of like amount.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9th August 2016.
(SAUMYA CHAUHAN)
MM-07(West)//THC/09.08.2016
State v. Raj Kumar & Anr. U/s 186/353/332/506/34 IPC
FIR No. 171/2000 PS Paschim Vihar 10/10