Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepak Etc. on 29 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH:ACMM-02
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. DEEPAK ETC.
FIR No. 45/11
New Case No. 296488/16
U/s : 186/353/332/324/34 of IPC.
P.S. : Gulabi Bagh
Date of Institution : 17.11.2011
Date on which case reserved for Judgment : 27.04.2019
Date of judgment : 29.04.2019
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 45/2011
2.Date of the Commission : 24.06.2011
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : 1. Deepak @ Deepu
S/o Sh. Bishan Singh
R/o H.No. 10674, Gali No.8, Pratap
Nagar, Andha Mugal, Delhi.
2. Rajesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Prem Kumar
R/o H. No. 10670, Gali No.9, Andha
Mugal, Pratap Nagar, Delhi.
3. Mukesh Kumar
FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 1 of 22 S/o Sh. Bishan Singh R/o H.No. 10674, Gali No.9, Pratap Nagar, Andha Mugal, Delhi.
4.Offence complained of : 186/353/332/324/34 of IPC.
5.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
6.Final order : Convicted.
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 24.06.2011 at about 11:10 PM at opposite Gali No. 8, near Road No. 40, Pratap Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Gulabi Bagh, all of accused in furtherance of his common intention, voluntarily obstructed SI Akshay Kumar, ASI Sanjay Kumar public servant employed with Delhi Police while they were discharging their duties and all accused persons voluntarily caused hurt with a sharp object, assaulted and used criminal force against SI Akshay Kumar and ASI Sanjay Kumar with intention to deter them from discharging their duty and thereby committed an offences punishable under Section 186/353/332/324/34 of IPC.
2. On the basis of the chargesheet, charge of offence U/s 186/353/332/324/34 of IPC was framed against accused persons namely Deepak, Rajesh and Mukesh and explained to them in vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 17.04.2012. Thus, the matter was put to trial.
FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 2 of 22 APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in total.
4. PW-1 Ct. Jaswant Singh deposed that on 24.06.2011, he was on night reserve duty in the PS Gulabi Bagh. On receiving DD No. 37A, he alongwith SI Sukhdev went at the spot i.e. Gali No. 8, Road No. 40, Partap Nagar, Delhi where they found huge crowd and SI Akshay Kumar and ASI Sanjay Kumar to whom the injury was caused by the accused, were shifted to Hindu Rao Hospital. Thereafter, IO collected MLC of SI Akshay and ASI Sanjay. IO recorded the statement of SI Akshay and prepared rukka and the same was handed over to him for getting the case registered. After getting the case FIR No. 45/11 registered, he went to the spot and handed over the same to the IO. IO seized the shirt of SI Akshay and sealed with seal of SS which is Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. The shirt also containing name plate of SI Akshay Kumar as well as shoulders stars and whistle dori. He correctly identified the clothes pullanda Ex. P1.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 3 of 22
5. PW-2 SI Akshay Kumar deposed that on 24.06.2011, he was on night emergency duty. At about 11:00 PM, he alongwith ASI Sanjay were on patrolling and checking on motorcycle make Pulsar reached at Road No. 40, they were going blowing siren of motorcycle. Two persons stopped their motorcycle and asked why they were disturbing the peace of persons and on being told that they were on duty, the accused persons started to scuffle with them. Accused Deepak, Mukesh and Rajesh were correctly identified by him. He further deposed that accused Deepak inflicted injuries on his chin with a sharp object and accused Rajesh hit him with stone on his head. Accused Mukesh also caused injuries on his hand with a sharp object as a result of which he was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital for medical examination by ASI Sanjay and SI Sukhdev recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A and seized his blood stained shirt vide sealing it with the seal of SS vide memo already Ex. PW1/A. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
6. PW-3 HC Ramesh Singh deposed that on 25.06.2011, he was posted at PS Gulabi Bagh as Duty Officer and recorded the present FIR Ex. PW3/A on the basis of rukka Ex. PW3/B which was handed over to Ct. Jaswant for taking it to SI Sukhdev Singh.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 4 of 22
7. PW-4 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Medical Record Clerk deposed that he has been working with Hindu Rao Hospital since 1984 and the MLC of SI Akshay Kumar which is Ex. PW4/A has been prepared by Dr. Shabir Mahbar and the result on the same has been given by Dr. Madhu Garg and Dr. Gagandeep and he identified signatures of all the doctors at point A, B & C respectively.
This witness was cross examined by accused however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
8. PW-5 SI Sanjay Kumar deposed that on 24/25.06.2011, he alongwith SI Akshay Kumar were on patrolling duty vide DD No. 36A on motorcycle bearing No. DL 1SN 2569, when they were stopped by two persons who objected to the siren of the Government Vehicle and on being informed that they were on duty, the accused persons started abusing them and inflicted injuries on SI Akshay Kumar as result of which public persons gathered on the spot and SI Akshay Kumar was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital for medical examination.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
9. PW-6 HC Satish Kumar deposed that accused Mukesh was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex PW6/B bearing his signatures at point A. This witness was not cross examined by accused persons despite opportunity being given.
FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 5 of 22
10. PW-7 Retd. ASI Sukhdev Singh deposed that on 24.06.2011, he received DD No. 37A regarding quarrel with SI Akshay and reached the spot alognwith Ct. Jaswant Singh and came to know that SI Akshay had been shifted to Hindu Rao Hospital thereafter he collected the MLC of SI Akshay and recorded his statement which is already Ex. PW2/A prepared rukka Ex. PW7/A. He also prepared site plan Ex. PW7/D and arrested accused Deepak vide memo Ex. PW7/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW7/D, disclosure statement of accused Deepak is Ex. PW7/E, bearing his signatures at point A. On 04.07.2011, he arrested accused Rajesh vide memo Ex. PW7/F, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW7/G, disclosure statement of accused Rajesh is Ex. PW7/H bearing his signatures at point A. On 17.07.2011, he recorded disclosure statement of arrested Mukesh vide memo Ex. PW7/I bearing his signature at point A. He correctly identified all three accused persons in the court.
This witness was not cross examined by accused persons despite opportunity being given.
11. PW-8 ASI Bheem Singh deposed that on 24.06.2011, he was posted as Duty Officer in PS Gulabi Bagh. On that day, at about 11:05 PM, he recorded DD No. 36A regarding departure of SI Akshay Kumar alongwith ASI Sanjay for patrolling. The copy of DD is Ex. PW8/A bearing his signature at point A. On same day, at about 11:15 PM, he received telephonic information that at Road No. 40, Street No. 8, Gulabi Bagh, some persons have quarreled with SI Akshay Kumar, He recorded FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 6 of 22 this information vide DD NO. 37A which is Ex. PW8/B bearing his signature at point A. This witness was not cross examined by accused persons despite opportunity being given.
12. As all witnesses were examined by the prosecution, prosecution evidence was ordered to be closed vide order dated 04.12.2018. Statement of accused persons namely Deepak, Rajesh and Mukesh were recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC on 18.07.2018 and accused persons opted not to lead defence evidence accordingly defence evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
13. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
REASONS FOR DECISION
14. Prosecution is alleging the commission of offence under Section 186/353/332/324/34 of IPC and the relevant statutory provisions for ready reference are:-
"Section 186, IPC:-
Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions. 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 FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 7 of 22 fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
15. In order to bring home a charge for the offence u/s 186 IPC prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(I) Voluntary causing obstruction to any public servant. (II) While such public servant is acting in the discharge of his duties.
16. Section 332 IPC the same is reproduced herein for ready reference:-
"Section 332 IPC :-
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.
FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 8 of 22
17. In order to bring home a charge for the offence u/s 332 IPC prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(I) Voluntary causing of hurt to any public servant. (II) While such public servant is acting in the discharge of his duties.
18. Section 353 IPC the same is reproduced herein for ready reference:-
"Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such 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 two years, or with fine, or with both."
19. In order to bring home a charge for the offence u/s 353 IPC prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(I) Assault or use of criminal force to any public servant.
(ii) While such public servant is acting in the discharge of his duties.
FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 9 of 22
20. The essential ingredients for Section 324 IPC are as follows:
(i) that the accused caused by his act bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the complaint;
(ii) that he did such act intentionally or with knowledge that it would cause the pain, etc.;
(iii) that it was unprovoked;
(iv) that the accused caused it by means of an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting; or by an instrument, which used as a weapon is likely to cause death; or by means of fire, etc.; or by means of any poison, etc., or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale etc., or by means of any animal.
21. Essential ingredients of Section 34 IPC are as follows:
(1) That there must be a criminal act;
(2) The act must have been done by several persons
in furtherance of their common intention;
FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 10 of 22
22. In the present case, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in total. Ld. Counsel for accused persons contended that the accused persons have been falsely implicated and it was also contended that despite availability of public persons, no independent public persons were joined. It was further argued that as per version of the prosecution and the police officials who have been examined, various public persons were present at the spot. It was further argued that in the absence of corroboration of independent public witnesses, the testimony of the complainant who is a police official is not trustworthy.
23. On the other hand, Ld. APP for State has argued that the state has successfully proved its case and it was further argued that the testimony of all 8 police witness is blemish free and consistent and thus accused persons deserve to be convicted.
24. The case of the prosecution hangs upon the testimony of the complainant SI Akshay Kumar and the other injured namely ASI Sanjay Kumar. As per the prosecution, both these witnesses were injured. PW2 SI Akshay Kumar deposed that he was on duty at about 11:00 PM alongwith ASI Sanjay Kumar and while on patrolling they were blowing siren on their patrolling vehicle. When they reached on road no.40, two persons stopped their motorcycle and asked them as to why they were disturbing the peace of locality. He told them that they were on duty and on this, accused Deepak and Rajesh (correctly identified by the witness) started scuffling with him and ASI Sanjay Kumar. In the meanwhile, accused Deepak called his brother Mukesh (correctly identified) and they FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 11 of 22 all caught hold of him. Accused Deepak inflicted injuries on his chin with a sharp object and accused Rajesh hit him with stone on his head. ASI Sanjay Kumar tried to rescue him by holding accused Deepak. He also fell down and during the scuffle when he tried to hold accused Deepak, accused Mukesh caused injuries on his hand with a sharp object. He further deposed that many persons were gathered on the spot and accused persons also fled away, thereafter, he was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital for medical examination by ASI Sanjay Kumar on the same motorcycle and SI Sukhdev reached the hospital where his statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded. After the treatment, he returned to the spot and Investigating Officer (IO) prepared the site plan at his instance and also seized his blood stained uniform with the seal of SS vide memo Ex.PW1/A. He correctly identified the blood stained uniform which is Ex.P1.
This witness was cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel for accused persons wherein he deposed that he made DD entry of his departure for patrolling, however, he did not remember the exact DD number. He also admitted that he knew the accused persons prior to the incident. He denied the suggestions that he was passing comments on ladies as a result of which he lost balance and fell down from the motorcycle.
25. Thus this witness clearly stated the said incident in detail with regard to his going to Hindu Rao Hospital for medical examination and further identified his blood stained uniform and also identified all the accused persons in the court. The complainant remained firm on his FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 12 of 22 stand during his cross-examination despite an elaborate cross- examination by defence counsel. No material contradiction could be noted to breach the credibility of the complainant.
26. Apart from his statement, the complainant has been corroborated by his MLC on record which was produced by PW4 Sh. Dinesh Kumar which is Ex.PW4/A bearing no. 4304/2011. The MLC states the name of relative or friend to be ASI Sanjay Kumar and corroborates the time of incident at 11:35 PM on 24.06.2011. The MLC further states the nature of injury to be abrasion on the right side forehead swelling and tenderness, 1cm incised wound on right mandible. Active blood and tenderness, superficial lactation hit on light forearms (1) Active blood 12 cm liner x 7 cm liner. The nature of injuries has been stated to be simple and caused by a sharp object. Thus the nature of injuries mentioned in the MLC also corroborates the testimony of complainant. There is no reason as to why the complainant would falsely implicate the three accused persons in the locality where he was patrolling on his vehicle. The fact that the complainant knew the accused persons beforehand as now bearing on the arguments that they would have been falsely implicated by the complainant. The defence counsel could not point out any previous enmity between the complainant and the accused persons. The defence also could not explain the cause of injuries on the person of SI Akshay.
27. Ld. defence counsel argued that the testimony of the complainant has not been corroborated. However, this is not the case.
FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 13 of 22 Complainant has been duly corroborated by other police official who was on duty alongwith the complainant. In this regard, the prosecution has examined SI Sanjay Kumar as PW5 who also deposed on similar lines of the testimony given by the complainant. He even stated as regard DD entry no.36A vide which they had left for patrolling duty. The said DD entry regarding deputing of SI Akshay Kumar (complainant) alongwith ASI Sanjay for patrolling has been exhibited as Ex.PW8/A and proved by ASI Bheem Singh.
28. A perusal of the testimony of PW5 SI Sanjay Kumar clearly reveals that he has also identified all accused persons and has duly corroborated the testimony of SI Akshay Kumar. This witness was also cross-examined at length by Ld. defence counsel, however, no major contradictions could be noted. He also denied the suggestions that SI Akshay Kumar received injuries on account of his motorcycle having slipped.
29. It was further argued by Ld. defence counsel that contradiction could be noted in the testimony of police officials and on the one hand Ct. Jaswant Singh stated that when he reached the spot, he found that the huge crowd was gathered and on the other hand retired ASI Sukhdev Singh stated that he did not find any person when he reached the spot alongwith Ct. Jaswant Singh. He further pointed out that Ct. Jaswant Singh alongwith IO went to Hindu Rao Hospital but on the other hand retired ASI Sukhdev stated that he deputed Ct. Jaswant for FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 14 of 22 the safe custody of the spot and went to Hindu Rao Hospital for collecting MLC of SI Akshay Kumar.
30. Evidently, the incident happened in the year 2011 and Ct. Jaswant was deposing after a gap almost two years. On the other hand, retired ASI Sukhdev was deposing after a gap of seven years and minor discrepancies in their testimonies are obvious and natural. Minor contradictions in the testimony of police officials who depose in a number of such like cases cannot be taken to be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
31. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that:-
"Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however, honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancies may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so".
FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 15 of 22
32. It is settled law that the witnesses are to be weighed and not counted and conviction can be sustained upon the sole testimony of the complainant without any independent corroboration.
33. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of "Yakub Ismailbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat" ( 2004 CRI. L.J. 4205 Supreme Courts ):-
"The legal position in respect of the testimony of a solitary eye-witness is well-settled in a catena of judgments in as much as this Court has always reminded that in order to pass conviction upon it, such a testimony must be of a nature which inspires the confidence of the Court. While looking into such evidence this Court has always advocated the Rule of Caution and such corroboration from other evidence and even in the absence of corroboration if testimony of such single eye-witness inspires confidence then conviction can be based solely upon it. In the case on hand, the testimony of the solitary eye-witness stands corroborated by other circumstances and evidences and more particularly."
34. Further, in the matter of "Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. V. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 (three Judge Bench) FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 16 of 22 1973 Cri LJ 1783 : AIR 1973 SC 2622, Para 19" it has been observed that:-
"....Even if the case against the accused hangs on the evidence of a single eye-witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest man, although as a rule of prudence Courts call for corroboration. It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs...."
35. In the matter of " Vadivelu Thevar V. The State of Madras"
(AIR 1957 Supreme Court 614), it has been observed that:-
"The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down that "no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact" has enshrined the well recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted." It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of single FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 17 of 22 witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play.
The matter thus must depend upon the circumstance of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution.
Generally speaking oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely (1) wholly reliable (2) wholly unreliable (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way-it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 18 of 22 subornation. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subordination of witness. Situation may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a dispute fact. The Court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in case of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver, both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the Court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable."
36. Furthermore, it cannot be said that police officials are not reliable witnesses and their testimony cannot be acted upon unless FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 19 of 22 corroborated by independent public witnesses. It is a matter of common knowledge that members of general public are reluctant to join the investigation and testify in a court of law. The pious cause of justice cannot be abandoned due to the general apathy and callousness of the common man.
37. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of "Karamjit Singh v. State" (AIR 2003 SC 1311) that :-
"The testimony of the police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds'.
38. The Apex Court reiterated the above position in precedent titled as Girija Prasad v. State of MP (AIR 2007 SC 3106) has held that:-
"It is well settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a given case, a court of law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of complainant or a police official but it is not the law that the police witnesses should FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 20 of 22 not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence".
39. The testimony of the complainant and ASI Sanjay Kumar is further corroborated by the testimony of Ct. Jaswant who reached the spot alongwith SI Sukhdev. The preparation of rukka Ex.PW7/A, site plan Ex.PW7/B, seizure memo of the blood stained uniform Ex.PW1/A, recording of statement of SI Akshay Kumar Ex.PW2/A, arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused persons from Ex.PW7/C to Ex.PW7/H and the disclosure statement of accused Mukesh Kumar Ex.PW7/I have been proved by retired ASI Sukhdev Singh who has been examined as PW7. The DD entry vide which the information of quarrel FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 21 of 22 with SI Akshay, which is DD No. 37A has been proved as Ex.PW8/B by PW8 ASI Bheem Singh.
40. From the unimpeached and blemish free testimony of the complainant and other police witnesses, it is conclusively established on record that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed SI Akshay Kumar and ASI Sanjay Kumar and used criminal force against them and caused injury to SI Akshay when they were on duty as a public servant and thus the prosecution has successfully established its case beyond a shadow of doubt that all the accused persons have committed offence under Section 186/353/332/324/34 of IPC. Accordingly, accused persons namely Deepak, Rajesh and Mukesh are convicted for the alleged offences under Section 186/353/332/324/34 of IPC.
41. Ordered accordingly.
Digitally signed by CHETNA CHETNA SINGH
Announced in the open SINGH Date:
2019.05.01
Court on 29.04.2019 16:12:40 +0000
(Chetna Singh)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Central/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 29.04.2019 FIR No. 45/11 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Deepak & Ors Page No. 22 of 22