Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunita on 28 June, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK SHERAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No.160/2000
P.S. Defence Colony
U/s 186/353/332 IPC
State Vs. Sunita
JUDGMENT :
a. Sl. No. of the case : 153/2
b. Date of Institution : 12.10.2001
c. Date of Commission of Offence : 06.03.2000
d. Name of the complainant : Sumer Chand Garg
Section Officer, Slum
Department, MCD,
e. Name of the accused and his : Sunita
parentage and address W/o Rajendra
R/o Jhuggi no. E720, J.J.
Camp, Gautam Nagar,
New Delhi
f. Offence complained of : U/s 186/353/332 IPC
g. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h. Order reserved : 28.06.2013
i. Final Order : Acquitted
j. Date of such order : 28.06.2013
FIR NO. 160/2000 PAGE 1 OF PAGE 11
PS DEFENCE COLONY
1. The accused in this case was sent up for trial for the commission of offence u/s 186/353/332 IPC.
2. The facts in brief are that on 06.03.2000, at around 5.00 p.m., the complainant namely Sh. Sumer Chand Garg, the Section Officer, MCD was doing the demolition work of jhuggis situated at Gautam Nagar, AIIMS. In the meantime, accused along with her associates came there and started beating the complainant. She torn the shirt of the complainant and caught hold of him from his neck. The police personnels present over there saved the complainant. The accused was apprehended at the spot itself. So on the basis of statement of complaint of complainant, present case FIR was lodged. Investigation was carried out. Accused was arrested and after completing other formal investigation the challan was presented before the court for trial u/s. 186/353/332 IPC against the accused.
3. A prima facie offence having been made out against the accused, charge was framed against accused on 03.04.2003, U/s.186/353/332 IPC, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case the prosecution has examined eight witnesses namely Ct. Ashok Pal as PW1, Sumer Chand Garg as PW2, HC Dharam Pal as PW3, ASI Champa Lal as PW4, HC Gayatri as PW5, Atul Vashisht as PW6, SI Avdesh Oraon as PW7 and Rajbir Singh FIR NO. 160/2000 PAGE 2 OF PAGE 11 PS DEFENCE COLONY as PW8.
5. PW1 Ct. Ashok Pal has testified that on 06.03.2000, he was present in the police post. At about 6/6.30 p.m., two MCD officers came at the police post and one of the MCD official namely Sumer Chand was found injured. PW1 further testified that ASI Avdesh sent him to AIIMS hospital with injured Sumer Chand for his medical and after his medical examination, he along with Sumer Chand came back at police post. Sumer Chand gave a written statement to ASI Avdesh and he made endorsement on the same and sent him to the PS for the registration of the FIR and he got the FIR registered.
6. PW2 Sumer Chand Garg has testified that on 06.03.2000, he along with Atul Vashisht of his department and other police staff was doing demolition of jhuggis at Gautam Nagar, AIIMS. After the demolition programme when they were returning back from the spot to the office, some of the lady including the accused now present in the court, came towards them and accused Sunita caught hold the collar of his shirt and pressed with her hand on his neck. PW2 further testified that some male persons were also with the accused at that time. Police personnels intervened in the matter and got escaped him from the accused persons. PW2 further testified that perhaps there was some bleeding from his neck due to the assault by the accused. Thereafter he along with Atul Vashisht and FIR NO. 160/2000 PAGE 3 OF PAGE 11 PS DEFENCE COLONY other police staff went to the police post from where the police officials sent him to hospital for medical examination along with a police Constable and after treatment from hospital, he came back at the spot and handed over a written complaint to police which is Ex. PW2/A.. PW2 further testified that the complaint was written by Atul Vashisht and he signed the same. PW2 further testified that on 26.04.2000, the accused present in the court was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/B. PW2 was cross examined by Ld. APP as he was resiling from his earlier statement given to the police. In his cross examination, PW2 has testified that the demolition work was being carried out and was in progress when the accused assaulted on him and caught his collar.
PW2 was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel also. In his cross examination, PW2 has testified that they started their work at about 10.00 a.m. and till the finishing of work, nobody else obstructed them from doing their duty.
7. PW3 HC Dharam Pal has testified that on 06.03.2000, he was on duty with MCD officers for demolition of jhuggies at Gautam Nagar, AIIMS. Many other police officials were also with them. PW3 further testified that after the demolition work when the MCD officials were returning to their office, he went to South Ex., to bring his scooter and when he was returning to the police post on FIR NO. 160/2000 PAGE 4 OF PAGE 11 PS DEFENCE COLONY his scooter, he found many public persons gathered there. PW3 further testified that when he went towards the crowd after parking his scooter, he saw that the accused Sunita was caught holding the neck of complainant Sumer Chand Garg. He intervened and got escaped him from the accused. IO recorded his statement. In his cross examination, PW3 has testified that the quarrel did not start in his presence. PW3 further testified that the complainant did not accompany him to the police post from the spot.
8. PW4 ASI Champa Lal has testified that on 06.03.2000, on receipt of rukka, he recorded the present case FIR which is Ex. PW4/A. He also put his endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW1/B. Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW4.
9. PW5 HC Gayatri has testified that on 26.04.2000, she was called by ASI Avdesh Oran and she conducted the personal search of accused Sunita present in the court, vide personal search memo Ex. PW2/B. The arrest memo of accused was prepared which is Ex. PW5/A.
10. PW6 Atul Vashisht has testified that on 06.03.2000, he along with the team of Sumer Chand Garg and other members of demolition staff were demolishing jhuggis at Gautam Nagar, J.J Cluster. After completing the demolition work, at about 4.30 p.m., accused Sunita FIR NO. 160/2000 PAGE 5 OF PAGE 11 PS DEFENCE COLONY present in the court came there and started beating Sumer Chand Garg. She called up names to Sumer Chand Garg, pushed him and took him by neck and punched him up as well. After that, the other residents of jhuggi cluster also arrived there and police persons also came there and with their help, Sumer Chand Garg was saved. Thereafter they went to the chowki and moved an application for lodging an FIR. PW6 further testified that Sumer Chand Garg was sent to AIIMS for getting medical check up.
In his cross examination PW6 has testified that no incident took place during the process of demolition.
11. PW7 SI Avdesh Oraon has testified that on 06.03.2000, at around 6.30 p.m., two officers of MCD namely Sumer Chand and Atul Vashisht came to police chowki and they told him that they had been beaten in the jhuggi area of Gautam Nagar, J. J. Camp. PW7 further testified that Sumer Chand Garg was sent to AIIMS hospital along with Ct. Ashok Pal for medical examination. After returning from the hospital, Sumer Chand Garg gave a written complaint to him which is Ex. PW2/A and he made endorsement on the same vide Ex. PW7/A and sent Ct. Ashok Pal to the PS with rukka for the registration of FIR. PW7 further testified that he along with Sumer Chand and Atul Vashisht went to the said jhuggi area and prepared the site plan at the instance of Sumer Chand Garg which is Ex. PW7/B. In the meantime, HC Dharam Pal who was on demolition FIR NO. 160/2000 PAGE 6 OF PAGE 11 PS DEFENCE COLONY duty, came back to Chowki and he recorded his statement. He also recorded the statement of Ct. Ashok Pal. PW7 further testified that on 26.04.2000, he took Sumer Chand and one lady Ct. Gayatri to the jhuggi area and on the instance of Sumer Chand, he effected the arrest of accused Sunita present in the court vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/A. Personal search of accused was also carried out vide memo Ex. PW5/B. Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW7.
12. PW8 Rajbir Singh has testified that the MLC of Sumer Chand Garg was prepared by Dr. Pooja Sharma and she opined the injuries suffered to be simple, blunt.
13. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded U/s 313 r/w. 281 of Cr.P.C. In her statement, accused denied to have committed the offence and claimed to has been falsely implicated in this case. She further denied to lead any defence evidence.
14. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also perused the entire record.
15. Hurting a public servant in order to deter him from discharging his official duty is the essence of offences under sections 332 and 353 of FIR NO. 160/2000 PAGE 7 OF PAGE 11 PS DEFENCE COLONY IPC. In the present case, despite certain discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, there is sufficient proof to establish that the accused caused injury to the complainant PW 2. However, there is no convincing evidence that PW2 was, at the time of assault, performing his official duty.
16. Complainant has deposed before this court as PW2 and he has supported the prosecution case by narrating the incident of assault upon him. He has deposed that on the day of incident, he had gone to demolish the illegal constructions at Gautam Nagar where the accused resided and when he was returning from the spot after carrying out the demolition work, accused along with some other inhabitants came over and assaulted him. PW2 has particularly testified that the accused caught hold of the collar of his shirt and pressed his neck with her hands. PW2 has also deposed that perhaps there was some blood on his neck and he was rescued by the police which was present at the spot. His testimony has been corroborated by other witnesses in material particular. PW2 has also correctly identified the accused as the person who assaulted him on the day of incident. He has also proved his complaint which is Ex PW2/A.
17. PW3 Head Constable Dharam Pal was deployed at the site of demolition to provide police protection has also testified that he saw accused catching hold of the neck of PW2. He has further deposed FIR NO. 160/2000 PAGE 8 OF PAGE 11 PS DEFENCE COLONY that he intervened and saved PW2. Though in his testimony, he stated that the quarrel did not start in his presence, but he has clarified that he had gone to bring his scooter after the demolition work was over and after taking the scooter, he had come back to the spot.
18. PW6 Atul Vashisht who was working with PW2 as Allotment Officer and was present at the spot has also supported the version rendered by PW2. He has testified that after the demolition work was over, he along with PW2 was inspecting the cite when accused came at the spot and started beating PW2. He has deposed that accused took PW2 by his neck and beat him. He has also deposed that PW2 was saved with the help of the police. He has also identified accused in the court as the perpetrator.
19. The prosecution examined Investigating Officer as PW7. He himself did not see the occurrence, but he has proved by his testimony, apart from investigation, that PW2 and PW6 went to police post to lodge a complaint and told him that they had been beaten up at the spot. PW7 sent PW2 for medical examination.
20. Thus there is sufficient evidence to prove that accused caught hold of PW2 and gave beating to him. This ocular evidence is supported by medical evidence too. The MLC which is proved by PW8 shows that FIR NO. 160/2000 PAGE 9 OF PAGE 11 PS DEFENCE COLONY accused had received scratch marks and bruises over his neck and upper chest wall due to assault by jhuggi dwellers on 06/03/2000. The doctor who treated PW2 has not been examined as not being traceable, but no dispute has been raised by the defence in this respect.
21. However from the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it is not proved whether the assault on PW2 took place while he was discharging his duty or not. According to the testimony of PW2 in his examination in chief, he was assaulted while he was returning from the spot after demolition. However, in his cross examination by the prosecutor, he has alleged that he was assaulted when the work of demolition was in progress. PW6 and PW 3 have also deposed that when PW2 was assaulted by the accused, the work had finished. To prove a charge for offence under section 186 IPC and 353 IPC, there must be evidence to establish that the complainant was assaulted in order to prevent him from carrying out his public functions. It must be shown by the prosecution that the obstruction or resistance was offered to the complainant in the discharge of his duties or public functions. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that accused assaulted PW2 in the execution of his duty or to prevent or deter him from discharging his public functions. As per evidence, the work of demolition was over and PW2 and 6 were leaving the spot. PW3 had already left the spot. The act of returning from the FIR NO. 160/2000 PAGE 10 OF PAGE 11 PS DEFENCE COLONY demolition cite cannot be said to be a public function. Besides, none of the witness including PW2 and PW6 has stated anything the effect that accused made the assault to deter them from carrying out the demolition. No such utterances has been attributed to the accused by either of the witness. Nor has either of them stated that the accused issued any threat against carrying out the demolition work. Thus the assault on PW2 cannot be connected with his public functions. However, as stated above, there is ample proof to establish that accused caused injury to PW2. In the light of the evidence, the accused is held guilty of commission of offences u/s 323 and 341 of IPC.
22. Accordingly, the accused Smt. Sunita is convicted for the offence punishable U/s 323/341 IPC.
Announced in the Open Court (DEEPAK SHERAWAT)
On 28.06.2013 Metropolitan Magistrate
South East/New Delhi
FIR NO. 160/2000 PAGE 11 OF PAGE 11
PS DEFENCE COLONY
FIR NO. 160/2000 PAGE 12 OF PAGE 11
PS DEFENCE COLONY