Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Sharma Etc on 21 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VIJAYSHREE RATHORE,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. Amit Sharma Etc
FIR No. : 241/2011
PS : Hauz Khas
U/s : 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act
JUDGMENT
A. Sl. No. of the Case 2036425/2016 DLST020008402012 B. Date of Commission of offence 10.07.2011 C. Date of FIR 10.07.2011 D. Date of charge-sheet 01.12.2012 E. Name of the complainant HC Jai Narayan F. Name of the accused persons, their parentage 1) Amit Sharma S/o Ghanshyam Sharma, R/o and residence V2, Green Park Extn., New Delhi.
2) Sonu S/o Laki Ram R/o H.No. 92, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi.
G. Offence complained of or proved 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act
H. Date of framing of charges 16.09.2014
I. Date of commencement of evidence 18.08.2015
J. Plea of the accused Not guilty
K. Date on which judgment is reserved 23.02.2024
L. Final Order Convicted
M. Date of Judgment 21.03.2024
State Vs. Amit Sharma Etc FIR No. : 241/2011 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Page no.1 of 15 Brief facts of the present case
1. The case put forth by prosecution in brief is that on receiving DD No. 30A dt. 10.07.2011 IO SI Mithlesh alongwith Ct. Ashok reached at the spot i.e. Chane Wali Gali, Yusuf Sarai where they found that many people had gathered. They also found PCR E97 alongwith InCharge HC Jai Narayan alongwith staff and beat staff and they handed over two boys were apprehended by them whose names were Amit Sharma and Sonu. Statement of PCR staff was recorded who informed that when they received call regarding the beatings and snatching of money in Chane wali gali, Yusuf Sarai they reached and found that some person were pelting stones and fighting amongst them. Amongst them one person had also thrown a stone on the PCR van due to which the front mirror was broken. Further HC Narayan and other beat staff was also hurt by pelting of stones. Beat staff alongwith HC Kishore and others apprehended the accused persons. Thereafter the MLC of HC Jai Narayan was conducted. FIR was lodged u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC and 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Disclosure statement of accused persons were recorded. Accused persons were arrested and personal search was also conducted vide separate memos. Statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Sanction u/s 195 Cr.P.C. was obtained. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused. Cognizance of the same was taken.
State Vs. Amit Sharma Etc FIR No. : 241/2011 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Page no.2 of 15 Framing of charge
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 16.09.2014 charge was framed against accused Amit Sharma and Sonu for the offence u/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
3. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined 7 witnesses. PW1 is HC Jai Narayan, PW2 is Ct Baldev, PW3 is HC VPS Rao, PW4 is Ct. Ashok Kumar, PW5 is Ct. Pravesh, PW6 is ASI Kishore, PW7 is SI Mithlesh.
4. PW1 ASI Jai Narayan had deposed in his testimony that on 10.07.2011 at about 9:00pm, he received call through wireless message regarding snatching at Chaney wali gali Gautam Nagar Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi. He had further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith abovesaid staff reached at the spot near Chaney wali gali Gautam Nagar Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi at about 9:05pm and they saw some public persons were pelting stones on each other and quarreling to each other. He had further deposed that before they could reached the spot, one person had pelted stone on PCR van due to which front glass of PCR van was crack and other boy threw a stone towards them, which hit him on his left arm and State Vs. Amit Sharma Etc FIR No. : 241/2011 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Page no.3 of 15 abdomen. He had further deposed that one person had pelted stone which hit the leg of gunman HC VPS Rao. He had further deposed that in the meantime, HC Kishore and Ct. Baldev also reached at the spot and with their help they apprehended two persons. He had further deposed that later on names of accused persons were disclosed as Amit Sharma & Sonu. He had further deposed that they handed over accused persons to the IO/SI Mithlesh. He had further deposed that IO recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/A. He had further deposed that accused Sonu was sustained injuries in the said quarrel and was got medically examined in the AIIMS Trauma center hospital. He had further deposed that they came back to spot after medical examination of accused Sonu. IO prepared site plan at his instance and arrested accused persons vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B and PW 1/C (respectively). He had further deposed that personal search of accused persons got conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/D and PW1/E (respectively). He had further deposed that IO recorded his supplementary statement. He had further deposed that he was also medically examined in AIIMS. Witness had correctly identified the accused persons. PW3 ASI V.P.S Rao and PW5 Ct. Pravesh had also deposed the same in their testimonies.
5. PW2 Ct. Baldev Singh had deposed in his testimony that on 10.07.2011 he alongwith HC Kishore Singh were on petrolling duty in their beat Yusuf Sarai and when they were coming State Vs. Amit Sharma Etc FIR No. : 241/2011 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Page no.4 of 15 from the side of main road August Kranti Marg, while petrolling and when they reached near Chaney wali gali, Yusuf sarai, they saw a PCR van standing there having its front glass crack. He had further deposed that he alongwith HC Kishore and PCR officials apprehended both the accused persons. He had further deposed that Sl Mithlesh also reached at the spot and they handed over the accused persons to the 1O/SI Mithlesh. Witness had correctly identified the accused persons. PW6 ASI Kishore had also deposed the same in his testimony.
6. PW7 SI Mithlesh had deposed in his testimony that on 10.07.2011 he was posted at PS Hauz Khas as SI and on that day DD no. 30A through Duty Officer regarding beatings and snatching of money. He had further deposed that thereafter at about 09.00 pm he alongwith Ct. Ashok went at Chane wali gali, Yusuf Sarai, Delhi for investigation where PCR vehicle no. E97 was already available with IC HC Jai Narayan, Gunman HC VPS Rao and Ct. Pravesh (driver). He had further deposed that front mirror of PCR van was in broken condition. He had further deposed that PCR staff informed him that accused persons had broken the front mirror of the van by pelting the stones. He had further deposed that HC Jai Narayan informed him that one stone was directly attacked on his body due to which he received injuries. He had further deposed that HC Kishor and Ct. Baldev reached at the spot as they were on beat duty State Vs. Amit Sharma Etc FIR No. : 241/2011 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Page no.5 of 15 near the place of incident. He had further deposed that he recorded statement of HC Jai Narayan and the statement is Ex.PW1/A and he endorsed the same at point B. He had further deposed that thereafter, he prepared rukka from point A2 to A1 Ex.PW7/1. He had further deposed that he handed over rukka/original complaint to Ct. Ashok for registration of FIR at about 09.50 pm. He had further deposed that after registration of FIR, Ct. Ashok returned back at the spot after near-about 40 minutes and handed over original complaint/rukka and copy of FIR to him. He had further deposed that in the meantime, he prepared site plan of the incident before Ct. Ashok returned back after registration of FIR and the site plan is Ex.PW7/2. He had further deposed that thereafter, he made arrest of accused persons vide arrest memos Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/B. He had further deposed that thereafter, he made personal search of accused persons vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/D. He had further deposed that thereafter, he sent police staff for medical examination of accused persons. He had further deposed that in the meantime, accused persons informed that they have personal enmity between themselves due to which both accused were fighting near the road and one PCR van staff tried to stop them. He had further deposed that however, accused persons started pelting stones on the PCR van itself and thereafter, he had taken accused persons at PS Hauz Khas and kept in locker for that night. He had further deposed that he also sent HC Jai Narayan for State Vs. Amit Sharma Etc FIR No. : 241/2011 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Page no.6 of 15 medical examination. He had further deposed that he received permission u/s 195 Cr.P.C. from ACP South Zone, PCR. Witness had correctly identified the accused persons. PW4 Ct. Ashok Kumar had also deposed the same in his testimony.
Statement of accused
7. The examination of accused persons u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they stated that they are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in the case. Accused Amit had called at 100 number because some unknown persons were committing snatching with him. In fact he was not medically examined and directly sent to JC. Accused Sonu stated that he was a passer-by on the alleged date of incident where some persons pelting stone PCR. One stone hit him and then the PCR took him to the hospital for MLC and thereafter falsely implicated him in the present case.
8. Accused persons led defence evidence, in which the witness Meena Sharma stated that on 10.07.2011 she had left her house and had gone to Yusuf Sarai market for buying vegetables at Gautam Nagar Road where she saw at about 08.30 pm crowd had gathered and she saw that accused Amit Sharma was standing near the PCR and she asked him what was the matter, upon which he told her that someone had snatched valuables from him and he was State Vs. Amit Sharma Etc FIR No. : 241/2011 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Page no.7 of 15 beaten also. After sometime police officials took the accused Amit Sharma (alleged) and assured her that they will take care of it. Thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. Final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused were heard and case file was perused.
10. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that accused persons are identified by all witnesses in the case. MLC is also on record to show the injury. There is no contradiction in the testimony of any witnesses. Do probable defense had been raised by the accused.
11. It is argued on behalf of accused persons that the entire prosecution story is a self concocted one and is not a actual picture of the incident. Statement of all witnesses are contradictory. Initially they are saying that two people were there and later on they said 8 people were there. PW1 HC Jai Narayan says that snatching and beating call was received to them and they reached in 5 minutes. He admits that the front mirror of PCR van was only cracked and not broken. Police officials only took Sonu for his medical examination. The medical examination of witnesses were conducted thereafter. No mechanical inspection report was conducted in the case. No stones are seized in the case. No photographs of incident were taken State Vs. Amit Sharma Etc FIR No. : 241/2011 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Page no.8 of 15 by the police officials present there. The departure entry is mentioned of 03.50 pm by IO but they are saying that they remained there till 11.30 pm. PW3 had also stated that there was only cracks on the PCR van but he do not know about the incident. He says that the front wind glass was broken. As per his version, crowd were pelting the stones. His version is entirely different from other witnesses. His statement is self contradictory. PW4 had admitted that accused Amit was not medically examined. He says that information was received at PS on 11.15 pm whereas the departure entry is of 10.50 pm. PW7 says that he received PCR call at 9 pm. His testimony shows that he stayed there for two hours. However, he says that he stayed only for 40 minutes. The arrest memo shows that the arrest has been made at 12.30 am. PW5 says that beat official was not present there. 5-6 persons were arguing. If IO remained there only for 10-15 minutes how the site plan was prepared. All the witnesses are giving the different version. PW2 Baldev also admitted that there was only crack on PCR van and it was not broken. He had not seen injury to the victim. He only stated that Amit was seen standing by him. When PW6 was not there at the time of incident, how did he know who gave beating to whom. Therefore, benefit of doubt must be given to accused.
12. Section 186 IPC provides punishment for 'obstructing public servant in discharge of public function'. In the said provision State Vs. Amit Sharma Etc FIR No. : 241/2011 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Page no.9 of 15 the expression whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in discharge of his public function is used. The word 'obstruction' is not confined to physical obstruction. It need not be an act of criminal force. The act need not be a violent one. It is enough if the act complained of results in preventing a public servant in discharge of his lawful duties. Any act of causing impediment by unlawfully preventing public servant in discharge of his functions would be enough to attract section 186 IPC. In the case of State v. Babulal Gaurishanker Misar, AIR 1957 Bom10, it was held that to constitute 'obstruction' within sec 186 it is not necessary that there should be actual criminal force. It is sufficient if there is either a show of force or threat or any act preventing the execution go the process of the civil court.
13. Section 353 IPC is a distinct offence and prescribes punishment for using assault or criminal force to any person being a public servant in execution of his duty ordeter public servant from discharging their official duties. Section 332 IPC prescribes punishment for causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.
14. There is certain precondition attached with prosecution of section 186 IPC. U/s 195(1)(a) CrPC. There is an express bar for the court to take cognizance of offence punishable u/s section 186 IPC and provides that there shall be a complaint made in writing by State Vs. Amit Sharma Etc FIR No. : 241/2011 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Page no.10 of 15 the public servant or by any other public servant to who he is subordinate. In Makardhwaj v. State AIR 1954 Orissa 175, it had been held that "noncompliance of the requirements of section 195 CrPC is fatal to the prosecution for offence punishable u/s 186 IPC." In the present case, the Sanction u/s 195 Cr.P.C. was obtained by IO. However, the sanction is not proved by the prosecution. No witness had been cited in the witness list who had given the sanction for prosecution of the case. Prosecution had also not thereafter summoned the sanctioning authority for proving the written complaint u/s 195 CrPC. The compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.c. is not proved in the present case and therefore benefit of doubt goes in favor of accused persons. Since Sanction u/s 195 Cr.P.C. is not proved, the ingredients of Section 186 IPC cannot be made out.
15. Now coming to the other offences i.e. Section 353/323 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to public property Act, 1984. Perusal of the record shows that the identity of accused persons is undisputed in the present case. All the prosecution witnesses had correctly identified the accused persons as the one who were involved in quarrel at the time of incident and were pelting stones.
16. PW1 HC Jai Narayan is the most material witness of the prosecution case as he is also the victim of offence and entire State Vs. Amit Sharma Etc FIR No. : 241/2011 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Page no.11 of 15 case rest upon his testimony. I have carefully perused the testimony of the complainant as well as his complaint Ex. PW1/A. A careful perusal of the testimony of complainant had remained unimpeached and uncontroverted despite extensive grilling in cross examination. In his testimony PW1 complainant had narrated the entire incident. As per his version, he along-with staff reached at the spot near Chane Wali gali, Gautam Nagar, Yusuf Sarai on receiving the PCR call and saw some public person pelting stones on each other and quarreling with each other. He had categorically stated that one person had pelted stone on PCR van due to which front glass of PCR van was cracked and other boy threw stones towards them which hit him on the left arm and abdomen. He also deposed that one person pelted stones which hit the leg of gunman HC V.P.S. Rao. There appears no contradiction in the testimony of PW1 complainant HC Jai Narayan. His testimony had also been consistent throughout that accused persons were pelting stones on them due to which he and HC VPS Rao sustained injury.
17. PW3 HC VPS Rao, and PW5 Ct. Pravesh Saini who were also present at the time of alleged incident and had also supported the entire version of PW1 complainant HC Jai Narayan . Their testimony had also been consistent throughout that accused persons were apprehended by Ct. Baldev and HC Krishan Singh, who were pelting stones on them due to which HC Jai Narayan and State Vs. Amit Sharma Etc FIR No. : 241/2011 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Page no.12 of 15 HC VPS Rao sustained injury. The MLC of PW1 HC Jai Narayan is also on record to suggest that he had received injury though simple in nature. There is further nothing on record to assume that those injury are self inflicted in nature. Thus the factum of causing hurt to complainant had also remained uncontroverted.
18. It is clear from the record of the case that HC Jai Narayan alongwith Ct. Pravesh and HC VPS Rao went to the spot on receiving the PCR call regarding snatching. The fact that the complainant along-with above officials reached at the spot for controlling the quarrel shows that they were discharging the official function at the time of incident. Thus, clearly PW1 complainant HC Jai Narayan, HC VPS Rao and Ct. Pravesh were acting in discharge of their duty at the time of alleged offence.
19. It is also clear from the testimonies of witnesses that accused persons were amongst the public persons who were pelting stones on each other and quarreling to each other. It is also clear from the testimonies of witnesses that they had pelted stones which hit on the left arm and abdomen of complainant HC Jai Narayan and also on the leg of gunman HC VPS Rao. The testimony of PW2 Ct. Baldev and PW6 ASI Kishore shows that accused persons were apprehended immediately on the spot. All the witnesses had consistently deposed in this regard. PW6 ASI Kishore had duly admitted in his cross examination that he saw accused persons State Vs. Amit Sharma Etc FIR No. : 241/2011 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Page no.13 of 15 pelting stone. Though PW2 Baldev Singh had admitted in his cross examination that he had not seen accused Amit pelting any stone, however he had proved the presence of accused Amit at the time incident. He had clearly stated in the cross examination that accused Amit was standing 35 yard away from the place. Though, many public persons were there at the spot who were pelting stones but the disclosure statement of accused Amit Sharma shows initially the quarrel broke amongst him and accused Sonu and they had called public persons in their support. His disclosure statement also states that they were pelting stone due to which glass of PCR Van was broken.
20. All the witnesses in the present case had consistently deposed that in the incident Glass of PCR was broken. Though accused persons are stating in their arguments that glasses were mere cracked, however their statement in itself an admission to the fact that public property was damaged in the case. There is no contradiction in the testimony of any witnesses that the glass of PCR van cracked or damaged.
21. It is well settled that in a criminal trial the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Any contradiction or iota of proof in favour of accused persons can completely dismantle the case of prosecution. In the present case there are cogent material available on record to suggest State Vs. Amit Sharma Etc FIR No. : 241/2011 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Page no.14 of 15 that accused persons had caused hurt to PW1 HC Jai Narayan and PW3 ASI VPS Rao while they was discharging his lawful duty and had also obstructed them discharging his lawful duty. There is also sufficient material on record to show that accused persons had broken the glass of PCR Van and had caused damage to public property.
Conclusion & Decision
22. In these circumstances and in view of the aforementioned discussion, I hold that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Accused Sonu and Amit Shrma are accordingly convicted for offence u/s 353/332/34 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to public property Act 1984 IPC. However accused persons are acquitted of offence u/s 186 IPC. Accused persons shall be heard in the point of sentencing separately.
Announced in the open court (VIJAYSHREE RATHORE) In Delhi on 21.03.2024 MM-06, SOUTH/SAKET DELHI State Vs. Amit Sharma Etc FIR No. : 241/2011 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Page no.15 of 15