Delhi District Court
State vs . Sachin on 21 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MM08 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Sachin
FIR No. 25/2008
PS : Kotwali
U/s 186/353 IPC
CNR No. DLCT020011902008
Date of Institution : 23.09.2008
Date of reserving of order : 17.07.2018
Date of Judgment : 21.08.2018
J U D G M E N T
1. Serial No. of the case : 300268/16
2. Name of the Complainant : Ct. Chittarmal
3. Date of incident : 11.02.2008
4. Name of accused person :
Sachin S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan
R/o H. No. 334, Gali, Village
Bakhtawarpur, Delhi36
5. Offence for which chargesheet
has been filed : U/s 186/353 IPC
6. Offence for which charge
has been framed : U/s 186/353 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Final Order :
(Acquitted of offence u/S 186 IPC. Convicted for
offence punishable u/S 353 IPC.)
Pr: Sh. Santosh Kumar, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Atul Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 1 of 17
PS: Kotwali
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1.Mr. Sachin, the accused herein, has been chargesheeted for committing offence punishable under Section 186/353 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.02.2008 at about 01:00 p.m, at Red Fort Chowk, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS : Kotwali, the accused had been driving one Maruti Car No. DL8CH8402. He came from the side of Azad Hind Market and jumped the Red Light signal and turned towards Chandni Chowk. Constable Virender and complainant Constable Chittarmal had stopped the accused driver and asked about driving license. However, the accused misbehaved with Constable Chittarmal. He also misbehaved with Traffic Inspector Gulam Sabir, who was standing towards traffic booth. When Traffic Inspector tried to challan the accused he pushed Ct. Chittarmal and he also threatened TI. He also refused to get himself challaned. PCR call was made. On the basis of information abovementioned FIR was registered. After completion of investigation 'final report' was filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and the accused was chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 183/353 IPC.
FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 2 of 17PS: Kotwali
3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor and summons were issued to the accused. Accused appeared in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, charge for the offences punishable under Section 186/353 IPC was framed against the accused. It was read over to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
5. PW1 Inspector Gulam Sabir is the Traffic Inspector. He has deposed that on 11.02.2008, he was present at police booth near Red Fort. Ct. Chhittarmal and Ct. Virender were regulating the traffic at Red Fort Chowk. There was green signal for the traffic of upper and lower Subhash Marg. At the same time, one Maruti car no. DL 8CH8402 driven by accused had come from Chhata Rail side and jumped the red light and tried to turn right side towards Chandni Chowk. The vehicle was stopped by Ct. Chhittarmal and Ct. Virender and they brought accused before him for making a challan. Accused started quarreling with the constables and obstructed them from discharging their official duty. Accused also threatened FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 3 of 17 PS: Kotwali and pushed Ct. Chhittarmal. Accused was challaned under the relevant Sections of M.V Act and his vehicle was impounded. Thereafter, a call was made to the police and police official came at the spot and recorded the statement of Ct. Chhittarmal and prepared the rukka for registration of the case. Accused was identified by him in the Court.
6. PW2 Mohd. Suleman is stated to be an eye witness. He has deposed that on 11.02.2008 at about 01:00 p.m., he was present at Red Fort Chowk. At that time one TI (Traffic Inspector) was challaning one car driver when the accused pushed the constable. Accused also threatened that " Inspector Ke Star Utarva Doonga". Accused also refused to get challaned his vehicle. Thereafter, TI challanged the vehicle of the accused and seized his car. IO recorded his statement.
7. PW3 HC Narayan Singh is the Duty Officer. He has deposed that on 11.02.2008, he received the rukka from Ct. Jai Prakash sent by ASI Bundu Khan. On the basis of the said Rukka, he registered the FIR no. 25/08 (OSR), which is Ex. PW3/A and endorsement of the rukka is Ex. PW3/B. Thereafter, he handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Jai Prakash for handing over ASI Bundu Khan for further investigation.
FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 4 of 17PS: Kotwali
8. PW4 Ct. Virender is the Police Official, who was present with the Complainant Ct. Chhitarmal. He has deposed that on 11.02.2008, he alongwith Ct. Chhittarmal was present at Red Fort Chowk for traffic regulations and other staff members including Inspector. Gulam Sabir were also present at some distance. At about 01:00 p.m., one black colour Maruti car make of Alto bearing no. DL8CH 8402, driven by accused came from the side of Azad Hind Market and jumped the Red Light and took a right turn towards Chandni Chowk. He alongwith Ct. Chhattarmal stopped the car and asked about driving license, thereafter, accused misbehaved with Ct. Chittarmal and thereafter, they took accused to Traffic Inspector Gulam Sabir, who was standing towards traffic booth. When TI tried to challan accused, accused pushed Ct. Chhittarmal and also threatened TI that "Tere star Utarva Dunga". Accused also refused to get the vehicle challaned. Thereafter, control room was informed. Thereafter, TI challaned accused under various sections of M.V Act and his car was impounded. ASI Bundu Khan (IO) came there and recorded the statement of Ct. Chhittarmal. He sent Ct. Jai Prakash to police station for registration of FIR. He went to police station alongwith copy of rukka and returned at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and handed FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 5 of 17 PS: Kotwali over the same to the IO. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B.
9. PW5 Ct. Chhitarmal is the complainant. He has also deposed similar to PW4 Ct. Virender. He has also stated that car of the accused was searched in which two base ball bats and one Corex Cough Syrup were recovered and the same were seized by the IO. He has proved his statement on Ex. PW5/A.
10. PW6 Retd. SI Bundu Khan is the IO of the present case. He has deposed that on 11.02.2008, after receiving DD No.15A regarding quarrel, he reached at Red Fort Chowk, where he found traffic police officials Ct. Chhitarmal, Ct. Virender and TI Gulam Sabir present. He made inquiry and recorded statement of Ct. Chhitarmal, which is Ex. PW5/A. He called Ct. Jai Prakash from beat. He prepared tehrir Ex. PW6/A from point "X" to "X1". He handed over tehrir to Constable Jai Prakash for getting the FIR registered at PS. The constable took the tehrir to the PS and returned with copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over the same to him. He prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Chhitarmal, which is Ex. PW6/B. Thereafter, accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/A. He conducted personal search of accused vide memo FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 6 of 17 PS: Kotwali Ex.PW4/B. He recorded the supplementary statement of Ct. Chhitarmal. He also recorded the statement of Ct. Virender and TI Gulam Sabir. Accused was released on bail. He recorded the statement of Ct. Jai Prakash. He recorded the statement of public witness Md. Suleman, who was an eyewitness. He made inquiry regarding the offending vehicle bearing no. DL8CH8402. He came to know from the Traffic police Department that the accused had paid the fine of the challan and therefore Court had directed to release the vehicle. He thereafter seized the abovesaid car vide memo Ex. PW 6/C. The vehicle was released on Superdari. He also obtained permission under Section 195 Cr. P.C., from the DCP, Traffic NR. He prepared the challan. He had not seized baseball bats and bottle of Corex Cough Syrup and it was inadvertently mentioned in the statement of witness.
11. PW7 ASI Jai Prakash is the Police Official who had participated in the investigation. He has deposed that on 11.02.2008, he was posted as a constable at PS Kotwali. On that day, he was on patrolling duty in the area of Old Lajpat Rai Market. He had received a call from IO/ ASI Bundu Khan for reaching at Traffic police booth, in front of Red Fort Chowk. He had reached at the aforesaid place at about 02:20 p.m. IO had handed over him a rukka FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 7 of 17 PS: Kotwali for registration of FIR. He went to PS, got FIR registered and returned at the aforesaid place and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. Thereafter, IO had arrested and personally searched accused in his presence vide memo Ex. PW4/A & Ex. PW4/B. IO had also prepared site plan of the spot in his presence. Accused was released on police bail. IO had recorded his statement in this regard.
12. PW8 SI Nand Kishore is a Police Official. He has deposed that on 12.02.2008, he was posted at Circle Kotwali as a Head Constable and was working as MHC(M). On that day IO ASI Bundu Khan, from PS Kotwali came at Circle Kotwali at about 05:00 p.m., and he inquired about vehicle no. DL8CH8402. In reply, he told him that the said vehicle had been released from Traffic Court after fine was paid by accused. Thereafter, the said vehicle was seized by ASI Bundu Khan by preparing seizure memo.
13. The witnesses were cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. The prosecution evidence was closed.
14. The prosecution evidence was closed. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. Substance of incriminating evidence was put to FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 8 of 17 PS: Kotwali him. He denied all the incriminating evidence. He would state that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case by the police officials. He has stated that on the alleged date of incident, he was taking a Uturn towards Kashmiri Gate. The signal was green. Ct. Chhitarmal and Ct. Virender came there and stopped his vehicle. They asked him to park the vehicle on the side of the road. He obeyed the direction. Thereafter they demanded the papers of the vehicle. He informed them that he did not have any driving license. They told them that they would impound the vehicle. They told him that he had committed various violation and he had to pay Rs.5000/ to them only thereafter they would allow him to go. He told them that he did not have such an amount. They told him to ask someone to bring the amount. However, he had shown his inability to call someone. Then, they told him that they would impound the vehicle. He told them to prepare a challan of the Court. On this both the police officials had abused him. Thereafter, they pushed him. They told him that the vehicle would be released by order of the Court only and that he would also be sent to Court. Thereafter they made a call to PCR. Then they took him to the Traffic Police Booth. After about one hour ASI Bundu Khan FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 9 of 17 PS: Kotwali reached at the spot. He had not pushed the police officials. He had not misbehaved. He was falsely implicated. .
15. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.
16. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. It has been proved that the accused was present at the spot. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant who is a public servant to deter him from his duty. The prosecution witness have also proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had used criminal force and he had assaulted the complainant, a public servant, to deter from discharge of his duty. Hence, all the ingredients of the offences have been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted.
17. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. None of the prosecution witness has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 10 of 17 PS: Kotwali accused had assaulted or used criminal force to deter the complainant from discharging his official duties. All the witnesses in the present case are police officials who have deposed falsely in favour of their colleague. They are interested witnesses. Their testimonies cannot be believed. No public person was joined as a witness which create doubts on the case of the prosecution. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of different prosecution witnesses which are sufficient to raise doubts on the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is prayed, the benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted.
18. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
19. In a criminal case the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts before the accused is asked to put his defence.
20. Section 186, IPC provides punishment for voluntarily obstructing any public servant in the discharge of his public functions. Section 195 Cr.P.C bars cognizance of an offence punishable, inter alia, under Section 186 IPC except or a complaint in writing of the public servant FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 11 of 17 PS: Kotwali concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
21. In the present case, no complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C has been proved on the Court record. Even in the list of witnesses there are total nine witnesses mentioned. However, none of them has made any complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove any complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the cognizance of the offence under Section 186 IPC is bad under the law and the accused can not be convicted for the said offence. The accused is therefore acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 186 IPC.
22. No sanction is required to prosecute the accused for an offence punishable under Section 353 IPC. Section 353, IPC provides punishment for assaulting or using criminal force to any public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant. The necessary essential ingredients of the offence under this Section are as follows:
1. there must be assault or use of criminal force by the accused;FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 12 of 17
PS: Kotwali
2. the victim of the assault or use of criminal force must be a public servant; and
3. the assault or use of criminal force must have a link with the discharge, by the public servant, of his public duty. It must be committed:
1. while the public servant was engaged in the discharge of his duty so that he could not proceed with it; or
2. in order to prevent him from discharging his duty in future; or
3. in consequence of anything, done by him in the past in discharging or attempting to discharge his duty.
23. In the present case, it has been proved by the prosecution that accused had been driving the Maruti Alto car bearing registration no. DL8CH8402 at Subhash Marg on 11.02.2008 at about 1 p.m. It has also been proved through the testimonies of the witnesses that witness complainant Ct. Chittarmal and Ct. Virender were on duty and that they had been managing the traffic at Subhash Marg opposite Red Fort being traffic police officials. The complainant has also admitted the presence of Inspector Gulam Sabir at the spot. The prosecution witnesses have FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 13 of 17 PS: Kotwali deposed that Ct. Chittarmal and Ct. Virneder had stopped the car driven by the accused as he had jumped the red light signal. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has admitted that he was stopped by the police officials. However, he had stated that he had not jumped the traffic light signal. Generally and as per law the traffic police officials do not stop a vehicle unless some visible violation of traffic rules by a particular vehicle driver is noticed. In the present case the accused has not made any suggestion to the effect that the complainant had stopped other vehicle also at the relevant time. In such circumstances, I believe the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the accused had jumped the red light traffic signal and due to the said violation his vehicle was stopped by Constable Chittarmal and Ct. Virender.
24. It has come in the evidence that both the policed officials had been performing their officials duty at the relevant time. The act of stopping the car of the accused was also involved in their official duties. As per the accused himself he did not have any driving license at that time. Therefore, it was necessary by law to make a complaint under the M.V Act. A constable is not a authorized to issue a challan to that effect. Therefore, they were under duty to take the accused before the Inspector FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 14 of 17 PS: Kotwali Gulam Sabir. Both the police officials had been acting in discharge of their official duties.
25. When the accused was produced before the Traffic Inspector, he was also doing his official duty by preparing a challan for the traffic violation committed by the accused. However, as the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses would reveal, the accused had threatened Inspector Gulam Sabir to get him removed from his job. He had also pushed the complainant Ct. Chittarmal.
26. PW1 Inspector Gulam Sabir, PW2 Md. Suleman, PW4 Ct. Virender and PW5 Ct. Chittarmal have deposed that the accused had pushed the complainant when Inspector was preparing the challan. Nothing contradictory has come in the crossexamination of any of the eye witnesses to disbelieve their testimonies.
27. PW2 Md. Suleman is a public person. He has categorically deposed that the accused had pushed the constable. In his crossexamination, suggestion has been given to the witness that he has deposed falsely at the instance of the police officials as he used to do his work of hawking with the aid of the police officials. However, no evidence to this effect has been led by the accused. Mere FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 15 of 17 PS: Kotwali giving suggestion to a witness is not sufficient to disbelieve the testimony of PW2. Nothing contradictory has come in his crossexamination so as to discard his evidence of his presence at the spot and to doubt his testimony.
28. During crossexamination of police officials suggestions had been given that the police officials had demanded illegal money from the accused. It was also suggested that the accused was falsely implicated when he did not pay the money. During his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., also the accused had stated that he was falsely implicated as he did not pay the money demanded by the police officials. However, no evidence has been led to prove this fact. The statement made by the accused at the time of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is not evidence. These statements of the accused have not been tested on the touchstone of the cross examination. They do not have any evidentiary value. On the other hand, all the eye witnesses have made their statements on oath in Court and they have been cross examined also. In such circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts the accused had pushed Constable Chittarmal when the accused was taken before the Inspector and his challan was being prepared by the Inspector.
FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 16 of 17PS: Kotwali
29. It appears from the testimonies of the witnesses that the accused was angry due to the preparation of his challan for traffic violation. However, the acts were done by the complainant and the other police officials in discharge of their officials duties. Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had used criminal force to complainant Ct. Chittarmal, a public servant, in consequence of the acts done by him in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant. The accused is therefore found guilty and he is accordingly convicted for offence punishable under Section 353 IPC.
30. Let the parties be heard on quantum of sentence.
31. Copy of judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Pronounced in the open Court on Dinesh Kumar this 21st day of August 2018. MM08 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
FIR No.25/2008 State Vs Sachin Page 17 of 17PS: Kotwali