Delhi District Court
State vs Surender Mohan Rana on 28 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 33/01
P.S. : Kanjhawala
Unique ID No. : 02404R0375292010
State
Vs.
Surender Mohan Rana
S/o Shri Lal
R/o Village and PO Ghevra,
Delhi.
Date of institution of case :10.01.2002
Date of reserving the judgment :25.01.2014
Date of pronouncement of judgment :28.01.2014
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case: 159/2/02 2. Date of Commission of Offence: 10.02.2001 3. Date of institution of the case: 10.01.2002 4. Name of the complainant: Sh. Kartar Singh 5. Name of the accused: Surender Singh Rana 6. Offence complained or proved: 353 IPC 7. Plea of Accused : "Not Guilty" 8. Final Order: Acquitted 9. Date of Final Order: 28.01.2014 FIR no. 33/01 PS Kanjhawala Page 1 of 11 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1.Succinctly, the facts of the case as per prosecution are that on 10.02.2001 at 12.15 p.m. at SDM Office, Kanjhawla, Delhi accused Surender Mohan Rana assaulted and used criminal force to Kartar Singh, SDM in execution of his duty as such public servant and prevented him from exercising his duty. The accused was arrested and upon completion of investigation,challan was prepared u/s 186/353 IPC and filed in court for trial.
2.The copies of charge sheet and annexed documents were supplied to accused in due compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C.
3.Prima facie case having been made out, charge for offence U/s 353 IPC was framed against the accused on 31.07.2007 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the case was adjourned for recording of prosecution evidence.
4.In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
PW-1 Ct. Jogender Singh deposed that on 10.02.2001 on receipt of DD No. 9 A he had gone to the office of SDM Kanjhawla alongwith ASI Shri Ram as a fight was reported on 100 no. He further deposed that there they met the SDM who gave a written complaint dated 10.02.2001. The complaint was kept pending on that day as they could not trace the accused Surender Rana. He further deposed that on next day they again went to the office where IO prepared the rukka on the basis of complaint filed by the SDM and same was handed over to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he came back at the spot and same was handed over to IO. He further deposed that they tried to find out the accused, but could not find him. IO recorded his statement.FIR no. 33/01 PS Kanjhawala Page 2 of 11
PW-2 Manpreet Singh deposed that he forwarded the complaint of Sh. Kartar Singh SDM, Saraswati Vihar to Smt. Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal, the then ld. CMM, Tis Hazari Courts u/sec. 195 Cr.P.C. and the same is Ex. PW 2/A. PW-3 Sh. Kartar Singh deposed that on 10.02.2001 at about 12.15 p.m. accused went to the his office and asked him to do the work which he suggested first and after that he started shouting. He further deposed that on that day accused had no personal work in SDM Office. He enquired that for what purpose he visited his office or whether he had any personal work or not but he was shouting unnecessarily and disturbing him in discharging his duties properly. He called at no. 100 and upon this he left his office. He further deposed that he gave his complaint Ex. PW 3/A to the police. He further deposed that police officials prepared the site plan Ex. PW 3/B at his instance PW-4 Sh. Chand Ram deposed that on 10.02.2001 he was working with SDM Saraswati Vihar as peon. At about 12:15p.m. when work in the office was going on, accused came to their office and started to shout badly and disturbed the working of SDM office. SDM Shri Kartar Singh tried to pacify him but he did not pay any heed. He further deposed that on compulsion SDM called police but meanwhile accused fled away from the spot. Later on his statement was recorded.
PW-5 HC Hari Chand deposed that on 10.2.2001, he was working as duty officer with duty hours from 9:00am to 5:00pm and on that day at about 11:30am he received rukka through Ct. Joginder sent by ASI Sriram. On the basis of the same he recorded FIR in the present case, carbon copy of which is Ex. PW 5/A. The endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW 5/B. After registration of FIR he handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct Joginder.
FIR no. 33/01 PS Kanjhawala Page 3 of 11PW-6 SI Raj Kumar deposed that on 14.02.2001 accused surrendered in Tis Hazari Courts and he formally arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW 6/A. He further deposed that thereafter accused was released on bail on the same day.
PW-7 Retd. Sri Ram deposed that on 10.2.2001 on receipt of DD No. 9A, mark X, he alongwith Ct. Joginder reached at SDM Office Kanjhawala where they could not met SDM. So aforesaid DD was kept pending. He further deposed that on the next day, they again reached at SDM Office Kanjhawala where SDM Shri Kartar Singh met him and gave his statement Ex. PW 3/A. He prepared rukka Ex. PW 7/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Joginder. He also prepared the site plan Ex. PW 3/B. In the search of accused, he reached at village Ghevra but he could not meet him. Later on he got information that accused was pursuing bail matter in Tis Hazari Court. He arrested the accused in Tis Hazari Court Complex vide memo Ex. PW 6/A. Personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW 7/B. He also sought complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC. Ex. PW 7/A and photocopy of the same is Ex. PW 2/A. PW-8 Lalit Kumar deposed that on 10.02.2001 he was posted in the office of SDM Saraswati Vihar as PA to SDM namely Shri Kartar Singh. at about 12:15pm, he was sitting alongwith SDM Shri Kartar Singh in the office. Meanwhile, accused came in the SDM Office and asked about his pending work and then started to shout, due to which they stopped their official work and SDM tried to pacify him but of no avail. SDM Shri Kartar Singh called the police at No. 100 because they could not do their official work due to the hue and cry made by the accused.
5.Thereafter the prosecution evidence was closed. The accused was examined u/s FIR no. 33/01 PS Kanjhawala Page 4 of 11 313 Cr.P.C. on 15.01.2014 to which he pleaded his innocence and false implication. The accused does not wish to lead Defence evidence.
6.I have carefully perused the case record and have heard arguments advanced by ld APP for the state as well as by ld defence counsel.
7.The accused in the present case is charged on the facts that on 10.02.2001 at 12.15 p.m. at SDM Office, Kanjhawla, Delhi he assaulted and used criminal force to Kartar Singh, SDM in execution of his duty as such public servant and prevented him from exercising his duty .
8.The relevant sections u/s 353 IPC are reproduced below for reference:
Section 353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty 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.
9.To prove the case against the accused the prosecution was obliged to prove the following ingredients:-
-That he assaulted or used criminal force;
-To public servant to desist him from his duty as such public servant;FIR no. 33/01 PS Kanjhawala Page 5 of 11
10.In the present case, the accused Surender Mohan Rana has been charged under section 353 IPC on the allegations for assaulting and using criminal force to the SDM Kartar Singh while he was executing his duty as a public servant and preventing him from exercising his duty on 10.02.2001.
11.The present FIR was registered on 11 February 2001 on the statement exhibit PW3/A of complainant Kartar Singh wherein it was stated that on 10 th of February 2001 while he was sitting in his office, at about 12 15 p.m. one person named Surender Rana whom he knows beforehand came to his office and started shouting due to which obstruction was caused in his official work. He tried to make Surender Rana understand but he kept on shouting. It was stated that after every second third day, this person comes and repeats the same act. Telephone call was made to 100 number and after the call that person ran away from the office.
12.It is a case of the prosecution that on 10th of February 2001 on receipt of DD number 9A constable Joginder Singh along with ASI Shriram went to the office of SDM where SDM Kartar Singh gave a written complaint dated 10th of February 2001 but the complaint was kept pending on that day as they could not trace the accused Surender Mohan. On the next day, they again went to the office of SDM where they met SDM Kartar Singh and IO prepared rukka on the basis of complaint filed by the SDM and the same was handed over to constable Joginder Singh for registration of FIR and accordingly the FIR was registered. However to the contrary, exhibit PW1/A mentions the date as 11th of February 2001.
13.PW7 SI Shriram deposed that on receipt of DD number 9 A he along with constable Joginder reached at SDM office Kanjhawala where he could not meet SDM and therefore the aforesaid DD was kept pending. PW7 further deposed that FIR no. 33/01 PS Kanjhawala Page 6 of 11 on the next day, he again reached SDM office and met Kartar Singh who gave his statement and on the basis of that he prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. On the otherhand, PW 3 Kartar Singh deposed that on 10th of February 2001 he gave a call to 100 number and he gave his complaint to the police and the police officers also prepared a site plan at his instance. PW3 did not depose that his statement was recorded on the next day. This is a serious contradiction which has not been explained by the prosecution. It could not be established as to on which day the statement of the complainant SDM Kartar Singh was recorded.
14.The investigating officer PW7 had deposed that on 10th of February 2001 he could not meet the complainant while PW3 complainant Kartar Singh during cross examination deposed that on 10 February 2001 PCR officials visited at his office but he do not remember the time. He did not depose that the investigating officer recorded his statement on the next day in his examination in chief but he deposed the same in his cross-examination. He could not even depose from which to which time he remained in his office. He further could not depose as to what day fell on 10.2. 2001 or 11.2.2001, while it is the case of the accused that 11.2.2001 was Sunday. He could not depose as to why he could not meet the investigating officer on the day of incident and why the statement was recorded on the next date of incident. He admitted the fact that office is closed on Sunday but he stated that in case of emergency the office is open, however he could not depose whether there was any emergency or not on 11 February 2001.
15.It was further deposed by PW3 that nothing happened between him and accused prior to the incident and their relation were cordial. To the contrary, the original statement exhibit PW3/A mentions that accusedcomes after every second FIR no. 33/01 PS Kanjhawala Page 7 of 11 third day and repeats the same misdeed of shouting.
16.It is further deposed by PW3 that no people gathered in his room where the accused were shouting, while PW 8 Lalit Kumar deposed during cross examination that several other officials also came there after listing the noise but he could not remember how many persons came there as he was pacifying the accused. PW8 Lalit Kumar further deposed during cross examination that police officials reached the SDM office at about 1:15 PM but he did not remember what they did and whether statement of any person was recorded. He further stated that the statement was recorded in office but he did not remember the time or whether it was on 10 February 2011 or 11 February 2011.
17.Given the facts of the present case, the first question that comes to the mind of this court is whether the act of shouting is an offence under section 353 IPC. For attracting provision 353 IPC, it is necessary that the accused should have assaulted or used criminal force to any public servant in execution of his duty. Conspicously, the act of assault or criminal force is a necessary ingredient of the offence under section 353 IPC. The word "assault" is defined in section 351 IPC as making of any gesture or preparation that will cause the other person to apprehend that the accused is about to use criminal force to that person. The words "criminal force"
are defined in section 350 IPC as using force to any person without consent in order to commit any offence or intending that such force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the other person. The word "force" is defined under section 349 IPC as causing motion, change of motion or cessation of motion by bodily power or disposing any substance or by inducing any animal.
18.Bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of IPC makes it obvious that mere FIR no. 33/01 PS Kanjhawala Page 8 of 11 shouting in itself does not come within the four corners of section 353 IPC. The witnesses have not depose that the accused had made any gestures or preparation that he's going to use criminal force to the complainant. The explanation under section 351 IPC provides that mere words do not amount to an assault. Moreover section 349 and 350 IPC regarding force or criminal force are also not attracted by the mere act of shouting. Thus, the court of the considered view that the ingredients of section 353 IPC are not satisfied in the present case. Though if proved the mere act of shouting could be said to have obstructed the working of the complainant as a public servant, but in the present case the accused is charged only under section 353 IPC.
19.Now, as far as the factual position of the present case is concerned, this court is also of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was not arrested from the spot where he allegedly shouted and committed the alleged offence. The information regarding fight was given to 100 number to the police and the police arrived at the spot. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant could not meet the police on the day of incident. No explanation has been furnished by the witness complainant or the investigating officer as to why the complainant could not met and why the statement was not recorded on the same day. The witness complainant could not also depose as to whether there was any emergency on 11.02.2001 and why the office was opened on that day being Sunday. He could not even depose the day which fell on 11th February 2001. The complainant could not also depose as to what the accused was shouting. There is no smoke without fire. No normal person will shout without any cause. It is admitted by PW8 that there were several cases pending in the office relating to the accused and the accused used to visit the FIR no. 33/01 PS Kanjhawala Page 9 of 11 office of complainant. It is admitted by the witnesses that on the day of incident the complainant Kartar Singh was listening to the grievances of the public. There is no other independent witness regarding the commission of the alleged act by the accused. There are several gaps and discrepancies in the case of the prosecution. This court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused.
20.It is the basic canon of criminal jurisprudence that the burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. The accused has a right to maintain silence in the trial. Every accused is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The burden is not just establishing pre-ponderence of probabilities but to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution is under bounden duty to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to any benefit of doubt in the prosecution version. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion howsoever grave cannot take place of proof. It is concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused and therefore, the accused is entitled to be exonerated.
21.In the light of above discussion and observations, the accused Surender Mohan Rana is hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 353 IPC charged in the present case. Bail bond stands cancelled and surety is discharged. Documents, if any be returned after cancellation of endorsement on the same.
22.File after necessary compliance be consigned to record room.
FIR no. 33/01 PS Kanjhawala Page 10 of 11 Announced in open court ( SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI )
28th day of January, 2014 Metropolitan Magistrate,
Rohini Courts: Delhi
FIR no. 33/01 PS Kanjhawala Page 11 of 11