Delhi District Court
State vs Himsnshu Pal Etc on 11 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHASHANK NANDAN BHATT
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS
State
Through Station House Officer,
PS Rajouri Garden
Case arising out of FIR No 825/2013
PS Rajouri Garden .....State
VERSUS
Abhishek Pal S/o Rajender Pal
R/o H.No. 408, Deepali Chowk, Pitam Pura, Delhi
Himanshu Pal S/o Rajender Pal
R/o H.No. 408, Deepali Chowk, Pitam Pura, Delhi
......Accused
a) CNR No. : DLWT020074702016
b) Sl. No. of the Case : 72418/16
c) Name of the complainant : Ct. Vikrant No.5376/T
FIR No. 825/13
PS Rajouri Garden
State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr Digitally Page 1 of 18
signed by
SHASHANK
SHASHANK NANDAN
NANDAN BHATT
BHATT Date:
2025.12.11
13:28:21
+0530
d) Name & address of accused : Abhishek Pal S/o Rajender Pal
R/o H.No. 408,Deepali Chowk,
Pitam Pura, Delhi
Himanshu Pal S/o Rajender Pal
R/o H.No. 408, Deepali Chowk,
Pitam Pura, Delhi
e) Date of Commission of : 25.12.2013
offence
f) Offence complained off : U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Final Order : Acquitted for the offence u/s
186/353/332/34 IPC and
Convicted for the offence u/s
323/34 IPC
i) Date of such order : 11.12.2025.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 11.12.2025)
1. The instant matter has originated out of FIR No.825/2013 PS Rajouri Garden, as per which the accused is facing trial for the offences u/s 186/353/332/34 of IPC.
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 25.12.2013, at about 08:40 PM, at Subhash Nagar Chowk, Main Najafgarh road, Rajouri Garden, the accused persons, who were sitting inside a Maruti Swift Car bearing No. DL- 8CAW 3066, were stopped by Ct. Vikrant Singh as the windows of the said car were covered with a black film (which is not permissible under the provisions of FIR No. 825/13 PS Rajouri Garden Digitally State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr signed by Page 2 of 18 SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.12.11 13:28:32 +0530 MV Act). The accused persons got infuriated upon being stopped, stepped out of the vehicle and started assaulting and abusing Ct. Vikrant. During the incident, Ct. Vikrant suffered injuries and his uniform was also torn by the accused persons. Immediately after the incident, an FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint made by Ct. Vikrant. During investigation, the IO prepared the site plan, arrested the accused persons, got the MLC of the complainant conducted, seized the car which was being driven by the accused persons, conducted the personal search of the accused persons, got the mechanical inspection of the vehicle conducted and after completion of the remaining investigation, filed the present charge sheet.
3. Pursuant to presentation of the charge sheet, the Ld. Predecessor Judge took cognizance of the alleged offences u/s 186/353/332/34 of IPC against the accused persons. Subsequently, vide order dated 22.07.2016, the Ld. Predecessor Judge, framed charges u/s 186/353/332/34 of IPC against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence. In support of its case, prosecution produced eight witnesses namely- Ct. Vikrant (PW-1), ASI Shiv Narayan (PW-2), Rohtash Singh (PW-3), Dr. Anand Kishore (PW-4), SI Gurcharan Singh (PW-5), HC Makhan Lal (PW-6), HC Sarbesh Kumar (PW-7) and ACP Uma Shankar (PW-8).
5. During his testimony Ct. Vikrant (PW-1) deposed that on 25.12.2013, he was posted as Constable in Rajouri Garden Traffic Circle and upon receiving an intimation of traffic jam at Subhash Nagar Chowk from SI Govind Sahay, he alongwith SI Govind Sahay went to Subhash Nagar Chowk. He revealed that at about 08:40 pm, one Swift Car bearing No. DL-8CAW 3068 was stopped by him as the windows of the same were covered with a black film. Thereafter, he FIR No. 825/13 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr Page 3 of 18 Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.12.11 13:28:42 +0530 knocked on the window of the car and warned the driver to stop it, however, the accused persons (who were sitting inside the car) came out of the car and started beating him by kicking/ punching and also abused him. The witness added that Ct. Makhan Lal came to the spot and saved him and also apprehended the accused persons. He also claimed that during the incident, some public persons also came at the spot to save him.
6. The witness added that subsequently, ASI Gurcharan Singh, alongwith other police officers came to the spot and recorded his complaint (Ex. PW-1/A). He revealed that the accused persons were arrested vide arrest memorandum (Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C), their personal search was conducted vide personal search memorandums (Ex. PW-1/D and Ex. PW-1/E), the car of the accused persons and the torn uniform was seized was seizure memorandums (Ex. PW-1/F and Ex. PW-1/G). He also stated that the IO prepared the site plan (Ex. PW-1/H) at his instance and thereafter, one police official took him to GGS Hospital for medical examination. The witness also identified the accused persons and the case property- his torn uniform (Ex. P-1) and the photographs of the car which was being driven by the accused persons (Ex. P-2).
7. During cross-examination, the witness/ Ct. Vikrant (PW-1) stated that on the date of the incident, he was posted with ZO-SI Govind Sahai on Chittha duty and his usual duty hours were 08:00 am to 10:00 pm (extendable as per traffic conditions). The witness also revealed that he cannot tell the name of the official who gave the information about the heavy traffic to the ZO as the message came through wireless control room. He was called by the IO qua investigation of the case 1-2 days after the incident. He admitted that in the site plan (Ex. PW-1/H) there is no reference of the car or the red light and he does not remember the time when the site plan was prepared. He clarified that the tussle started at the FIR No. 825/13 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr Digitally Page 4 of 18 signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.12.11 13:28:51 +0530 time of the incident when the accused persons did not stop their car and gradually tried to cross the red light. He stated that he does not remember if the accused persons also sustained injuries during the incident. He denied the suggestion that at the time of the incident the police officials were charging Rs. 200/- per vehicle for illegal parking. He also denied the suggestion that the accused persons objected to the actions of the police officials permitting illegal parking, after which they were beaten up by the police officials. He also denied the suggestion that the wife and the sister of the accused persons (with a three month old baby) were also present in the car. He also denied the suggestion that he had himself torn his shirt and produced the same in the case.
8. ASI Shiv Narayan (PW-2) deposed that on the date of the incident at about 11:15 pm, Ct. Sarvesh handed him the rukka, on the basis of which the FIR (Ex. PW-2/A) was registered, a copy of which was handed over by him to Ct. Sarvesh alongwith the rukka. He also stated that he made an endorsement (Ex. PW-2/B) on the rukka.
9. Rohtash Singh (PW-3), testified that on the day of the incident, at about 04:30 pm, an altercation was going on between some sikh boys and police officials and the said boys were arrested in his presence vide arrest memorandums (Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C), both bearing his signatures. The witness remained largely hostile and failed to identify the accused persons or the car which was being driven by them. Dr. Anand Kishore (PW-4) deposed that on 25.12.2013, he examined Ct. Vikrant Singh vide MLC No. 33473 (Ex. PW-4/A). He revealed that he examined the injury present on the forehead of the victim and as per the report of the radiologist, the injury was simple in nature.
10. Ret. SI Gurcharan Singh (PW-5) stated that on the date of the incident, he along with Ct. Sarvesh reached the spot i.e. Red light signal, Subhash Nagar FIR No. 825/13 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr Digitally signed Page 5 of 18 by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN BHATT NANDAN Date:
BHATT 2025.12.11
13:29:02
+0530
Chowk, where Ct. Vikrant and Ct. Makhan Lal were already present alongwith the accused persons. He stated that Ct. Vikrant narrated the entire incident to him, on the basis of which he recorded his complaint (Ex. PW-1/A) and Ct. Sarvesh was told to get his medical conducted. After the medical examination was conducted, both of them came back to the spot and thereupon, he recorded the tehrir and handed over the same to Ct. Sarvesh for registration of FIR. He added that in the meantime, he prepared the site plan (Ex. PW-1/H) at the instance of Ct. Vikrant. He revealed that thereafter, Ct. Sarvesh reached the spot alongwith the copy of FIR and handed over the original tehrir to him.
11. The witness Ret. SI Gurcharan Singh (PW-5) stated that thereafter, he took into possession the torn uniform of Ct. Vikrant and seized the car that was being driven by the accused persons vide seizure memorandums (Ex. PW-1/G and Ex. PW-1/H). He revealed that he interrogated the accused persons after which they were arrested vide arrest memorandums (Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW- 1/C), conducted their personal search vide personal search memorandums (Ex. PW-1/D and Ex. PW-1/E). He added that he recorded the statement of witnesses namely- Ct. Sarvesh, Ct. Vikrant, Ct. Makhan Singh and Rohtash Singh on 26.12.2013. He also stated that after the incident he came alongwith the accused persons and the staff to the police station, got the medical examination of the accused persons conducted and after completing the remaining investigation, filed the chargesheet.
12. During his cross-examination, Ret. SI Gurcharan Singh (PW-5), stated that he was present at PS Rajouri Garden at the time of receiving the DD No.51A but did not make any DD entry at the time of leaving the police station. He admitted that when he reached the spot, there was no quarrel. He admitted that site plan did not reflect the traffic light signal and the fact that there was FIR No. 825/13 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr Digitally Page 6 of 18 signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.12.11 13:29:11 +0530 traffic congestion. He denied the suggestion that the public person namely Rohtash was not present at the spot at the time of the investigation. He also claimed that he is not aware if the accused persons were accompanied by their respective wives to celebrate Christmas. Likewise, he further denied the suggestion that the police officials were illegally charging Rs. 200/- for illegal parking and since they objected to the same, they were implicated in the present case. He admitted that the accused persons suffered injuries as mentioned in MLCs (Ex. PW-5/DX1 and Ex. PW-5/DX2), which have not been mentioned anywhere in the chargesheet. He claimed that the sanction u/s 195 Cr.P.C was obtained by the concerned DCP. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials merely to show off their power.
13. HC Makhan Lal (PW-6) deposed that at the time of the incident, he was posted with ZO-SI Govind and was present at the spot. At about 08:30 pm, a white Swift Car bearing No. DL 8CAW 3066, having tinted glasses, was crossing the spot, seeing which, Ct.Vikrant knocked on the left side of the door of the car. Thereafter, the accused persons came out of the car and started an altercation with Ct. Vikrant, after which they assaulted Ct. Vikrant. The police officials present at the spot pacified the situation and apprehended the accused persons. The witness identified the accused persons and the car that was being driven by the accused persons.
14. Ld. APP for the State also put certain leading questions to the witness HC Makhan Lal (PW-6) during which he admitted that at the time of the incident, the accused persons hurled abuses at Ct. Vikrant and also torn his uniform. He also stated that the IO obtained his signatures on the arrest memos of the accused persons (Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C). During cross-examination he FIR No. 825/13 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr Digitally signed Page 7 of 18 by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN BHATT NANDAN Date:
BHATT 2025.12.11
13:29:20
+0530
stated that he did not provide any document to the IO qua his duty at the time of alleged incident. He claimed that the team assigned the duty at the spot comprised of SI Govind, Ct. Vikrant and himself, but he is not aware if the IO took the statement of SI Govind. He denied the suggestion that the time of the alleged incident, he alongwith other officials was illegally charging Rs. 200/- for illegal parking of each vehicle, which was objected by the accused persons, after which the accused persons were assaulted by him and his colleagues. He denied the suggestion that the car driven by the accused person did not have any tinted glass. He stated that the IO took the statement of one doctor who was present amongst the public, but later stated that he was not aware if the said person was a doctor. He revealed that Ct. Vikrant handed over his torn uniform to the IO, which was seized in his present but he is not aware of the mark of the seal or if the IO prepared a seal handing over memorandum after sealing the uniform. He added that the site plan was prepared in his presence. He denied the suggestion that the wives, children and sister of the accused persons were also present at the spot. He added that he accompanied Ct. Vikrant to the hospital and stated that he is not aware that if the IO took his signature on the seizure memorandums (Ex. PW-1/G and Ex. PW-1/F).
15. HC Sarvesh Kumar (PW-7) deposed that on the date of the incident he alongwith ASI Gurcharan reached the spot after receiving an intimation of the quarrel vide DD No. 51A (Ex. PW-7/A). Throughout his testimony, the witness corroborated the version narrated by Ret. SI Gurcharan (PW-5) and for the sake of brevity his testimony is not being reproduced. In his cross-examination, he revealed that the seal used by the IO to seize the torn uniform of Ct. Vikrant bared the mark 'GSG'. He clarified that no seal handing over memorandum was prepared and the seal was deposited by him in malkhana on 26.12.2013. He FIR No. 825/13 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr Page 8 of 18 Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN BHATT NANDAN Date:
BHATT 2025.12.11
13:29:28
+0530
denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
16. ACP Uma Shankar (PW-8) testified that he was posted at ACP Sub Division Rajouri Garden in 2015 and on 15.05.2015, a complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C (Ex. PW-5/DX3) was filed by him against the accused persons. During his cross examination, he clarified that in 2013, he was not posted in Rajouri Garden and he only received the information about the incident in 2015 through his Reader. He clarified that he has no information whether the accused persons were also injured during the incident. He denied the suggestion that he had granted the sanction for prosecuting the accused persons in a mechanical manner.
17. In the statement of the accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They claimed that the site plan is false as the incident took place at the entry gate of Pacific Mall where the police officials were illegally collecting parking charges (Rs. 200/- each) from the visitors of the mall and they objected to the same. They claimed that during the incident they were dragged out of their car and beaten up by police officials. They added that the prosecution witnesses led false evidene against them merely to save themselves from the crime that they committed. The accused chose to not lead defence evidence. FINAL ARGUMENTS
18. Thereafter the matter was listed for final arguments. During the course of final arguments, Ld. APP for the state prayed that the accused persons be convicted in the present case as the testimony of complainant and other prosecution witnesses have remained unimpeached throughout the trial. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused persons claimed that there was no record of the duty of Ct. Vikrant Singh on record, to establish the fact that he was on duty at the place of incident. It was submitted that there was several lacunae in the FIR No. 825/13 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr Digitally Page 9 of 18 signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.12.11 13:29:36 +0530 prosecution version- the buttons of the torn uniform were never produced, no challan was issued for using tainted glasses, the site plan did not mention the alleged red light where the incident took place, the accused too suffered unexplained injuries during the incident which have been revealed in the MLC, the time of recording of statement of Ct. Vikrant is unclear, the sanction issued by the concerned ACP was issued without application of mind. It was thus prayed that the accused persons should be acquitted in the present case. LEGAL POSITION QUA OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 186/353/332/34 IPC.
19. In the present case, the accusation against the accused persons is that they committed the offences punishable u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC by assaulting an on duty police official. The Indian Penal Code acknowledges the importance of the role played by the public officers in maintaining the law and order in the society and criminalizes certain acts which directly or indirectly deter the public servants in discharge of their official duties, thereby, providing assurance to the public officers that any deterrence to their service to the society is being adequately safeguarded. In furtherance of the said objective, Section 186 IPC criminalizes the act of obstructing 'public servant' (defined u/s 21 IPC) in discharging his public functions, once the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C have been complied with. Likewise, the act of voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant (u/s 332 IPC) and the act of assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant (u/s 353 IPC) with an intent of preventing or deterring such public servant from discharging his duties has also been criminalized under the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is based on the adage- 'they also serve who only stand and wait', criminalizes an act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all such persons, in the same manner as if the act were done by each of such person.
FIR No. 825/13PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr Digitally Page 10 of 18 signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.12.11 13:29:44 +0530
20. Furthermore, it is apposite to bear in mind the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Batham Vs. State of MP (2002) 7 SCC 317 wherein it has been held that:-
"Realities or truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by the heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and graver the charge is, greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between "conjectures"
and "sure conclusions" to be arrived at on the touchstone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record."
FIR No. 825/13 PS Rajouri Garden Digitally
signed by
State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr SHASHANK Page 11 of 18
SHASHANK NANDAN
NANDAN BHATT
BHATT Date:
2025.12.11
13:29:51
+0530
21. The position of law as crystallized from the above discussion is that in criminal trials, the prosecution is expected to prove its case on the touchstone 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Mere suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot form the basis of convicting the accused, in the absence of credible oral and documentary evidence, which clearly establishes the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, mere weakness in the defence of the accused cannot substitute the requirement of proof which is expected from the prosecution in criminal trials. FINDINGS OF THE COURT
22. Upon examining the record in light of the above legal position and factual matrix, it emerges that in the instant matter, the case of the prosecution is that at the time of alleged incident, when the complainant/ Ct. Vikrant tried to stop the accused persons for questioning them qua installation of tainted glasses in the windows of their car bearing No. DL-8CAW 3066, the accused persons abused and physically assaulted Ct. Vikrant and caused hurt to him (lacerated wounds on the right eyebrow, abrasions on the forehead etc). On the contrary, the accused persons have claimed that at the time of the alleged incident, the police officials including Ct. Vikrant were illegally collecting Rs. 200/- each for illegally granting permission to park the vehicles and when the said actions were objected by the accused persons, they were dragged out from their car and were assaulted by the police officials.
23. At the very outset, it is apposite to note that in order to effectively decide the contradictory stance taken by the parties in the present matter, the following points of determination need to be adjudicated-
1. Whether injured/ Ct Vikrant was discharging public functions at the time of the alleged incident?
FIR No. 825/13 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr Page 12 of 18 Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date: 2025.12.11 13:29:58 +0530
2. Whether Ct. Vikrant was assaulted by the accused persons at the time of the alleged incident? If yes, which offence was committed by the accused persons in the commission of the said assault?
FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO POINT OF DETERMINATION NO.1:-
24. Notably, in order to establish the charges u/s 186/332/353 IPC, the prosecution is expected to cogently establish that the public servant, who is the victim of the incident, must have been discharging his official public functions at the time of the alleged incident. In the present matter, the case of the prosecution is that at the time of the alleged incident, Ct. Vikrant, alongwith SI Govind and HC Makhan Lal, was performing traffic duties at Subhash Nagar Chowk, on account of heavy traffic jam at the said location. In this regard, it was clarified by Ct. Vikrant Singh (PW-1) during his cross-examination that he was performing chittha duty at the time of incident and his duty hours on the said day were from 08:00 am to 10:00 pm.
25. In the opinion of this court, in order to prove it's case, the prosecution was expected to produce credible documentary proof to establish that Ct. Vikrant was discharging his official duties at the time of the alleged incident. However, to the utter dismay of this court, the prosecution failed to place on record even a single document to either establish that Ct. Vikrant was on duty on the day of the alleged incident or to clarify that he was deployed at the place of the alleged incident on account of heavy traffic jam. To add to the woes of the prosecution, the FIR mentions that Ct. Vikrant was deployed at the place of incident at 02:30 pm i.e. approximately six hours before the alleged incident and in such a situation, his presence at the spot after almost six hours of receiving the information of the alleged traffic jam, in discharge of his public functions, appears to be highly doubtful, more so, when it is not backed by even a single FIR No. 825/13 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr Page 13 of 18 Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.12.11 13:30:06 +0530 documentary proof. Not just this, for reasons best known to the prosecution, the Zonal Officer, with whom the injured/ Ct. Vikrant was allegedly posted on the day of the incident was not produced as a witness, which leaves out the scope of any explanation qua the presence of Ct. Vikrant at the place of incident in discharge of his public duties. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish that Ct. Vikrant was discharging his public/official duties at the time of the alleged incident. FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO POINT OF DETERMINATION NO.2:-
26. Before appreciating the facts of the present matter, it is pertinent to note that in cases pertaining to physical assault, the testimony of injured witnesses holds a distinct place in the eye of law as an injured person is not ordinarily expected to give a false account of the incident during which he suffered injuries, unless there is cogent evidence to suggest the contrary. In this regard, the attention of this court goes towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohar Singh Vs. State of UP (2002) 7 SCC 606, wherein it has been laid down that "The testimony of an injured witness has its own efficacy and relevancy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries on his body would show that he was present at the place of occurrence and has seen the occurrence by himself. Convincing evidence would be required to discredit an injured witness". Additionally, there is no gainsaying in stating that the criminal courts must insist on the quality and not the quantity of evidence produced before them. The above preposition of law finds a mention in Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act/ 139 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, which categorically mentions that in order to prove a particular fact, no particular number of witnesses are required/ expected.
27. In the instant matter, injured/ Ct.Vikrant (PW-1) categorically mentioned FIR No. 825/13 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr Digitally signed Page 14 of 18 by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.12.11 13:30:14 +0530 that the accused persons assaulted him at the time of the alleged incident by kicking and punching him. The said version of Ct. Vikrant (PW-1) was duly corroborated by the testimony of eye witness HC Makhan Lal (PW-6) and Dr. Anand Kishore (PW-4), who medically examined Ct. Vikrant immediately after the alleged incident and confirmed the fact that the victim sustained simple injuries on his forehead (the MLC inter alia mentions the presence of lacerated wound on the right eyebrow and abrasions on the forehead). In the considered opinion of this court, the testimony of Ct. Vikrant qua being assaulted by the accused persons, appears to be reliable as the same has been duly corroborated (by the version of one of the eye witnesses and medical evidence), and this court sees no reason for discarding the same, merely because the injured and the eye witness in the present case are police officials, as there is nothing on record to suggest any previous enmity between the parties. Likewise, the fact that the public witness PW Rohtash (PW-2) did not support the prosecution story also per se cannot be used to discredit the testimony of PW/Ct. Vikrant as the same has been duly corroborated by other credible material on record (medical evidence and testimony of PW/HC Makhan Lal).
28. As far as the contention of the accused persons, regarding Ct. Vikrant and other police officials allegedly collecting illegal parking fees of Rs. 200/- per vehicle at the time of alleged incident is concerned, the same cannot be regarded to have been sufficiently proved as the accused neither led any defence evidence nor did they establish that they made any prompt complaints in this regard to the concerned officials. Likewise, the accused persons did not lead any evidence evidence to establish the presence of their wives and sister at the time of the alleged incident and the said fact too, cannot be regarded to have been duly proved. Additionally, although the defence has successfully established that FIR No. 825/13 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr Page 15 of 18 Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.12.11 13:30:22 +0530 accused persons too were assaulted at the time of alleged incident (as injuries were found on their bodies in their respective MLCs), the said factor alone cannot be used to absolve them of their actions of assaulting another person, namely Ct. Vikrant and the said fact, at best, gives them a right to pursue their legal remedies against the concerned people who assaulted them.
29. Furthermore, as far as the remaining lacunae in the investigation (non-
mentioning of the red light in the site plan, doubt regarding the exact time when the initial statement of Ct. Vikrant were recorded by the IO etc) are concerned, the same appear to be minor defects in evidence, which per se cannot be used to discard the cogent testimony of injured Ct. Vikrant (PW-1) regarding assault by the accused persons, more so, when the same stands duly corroborated by the testimony of eye witness HC Makhan Lal (PW-6) and medical evidence of Dr. Anand Kishore (PW-4). Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has successfully established that the accused persons jointly assaulted the injured/ Ct. Vikrant at the time of the alleged incident and caused simple injuries on his body.
30. At this stage, it is also apposite to mention that the prosecution has also contended that the accused persons tore the uniform of Ct. Vikrant during the incident. Notably, in his examination in chief, Ct. Vikrant (PW-1) did not mention the fact that his uniform was torn by the accused persons at the time of the alleged incident. Additionally, no handing over memorandun of the seal with which the allegedly torn uniform of Ct. Vikrant was sealed by the IO was prepared and the same was merely stated to have been handed over to HC Sarvesh Kumar (PW-7). In such a situation, since the seal used by the IO remained with the police officials of the same police station where the FIR was registered, it was well within the reach of the IO at all times and therefore, the FIR No. 825/13 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr Digitally Page 16 of 18 signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.12.11 13:30:30 +0530 possibility of tampering of the case property cannot be ruled out and the benefit of the said fact must be given to the accused. In this regard, reliance may be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah Vs. State (1993) 49 DLT 193 wherein it has been categorically held that in cases where the seal is kept by the police officials themselves after use and a doubt is created in the preservation of the seized article, the benefit of the same should go to the accused. Accordingly, in view of this court, although the prosecution has successfully established that the accused persons assaulted Ct. Vikrant at the time of the alleged incident, the fact that the accused persons also tore his uniform at the time of the alleged incident appears to be highly doubtful and does not inspire the confidence of this court.
31. The next question that falls for the consideration of this court is regarding the culpability of the accused persons in the instant matter as the prosecution has succeeded to the limited extent of establishing its case qua assault of Ct. Vikrant by the accused persons, due to which he sustained simple injuries, while failing to establish that he was present at the spot in discharge of his official functions. In this regard, it is apposite to note that Section 323 IPC, which criminalizes the act of voluntarily causing hurt to the other person, constitutes a minor offence when compared to the offence punishable u/s 332 IPC, which criminalizes the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty. Under the provisions contained in Section 222 Cr.P.C, this court is duly empowered to convict the accused persons for a minor offence, when the offence with which the accused persons are charged, consists of several particulars, a combination of some of which constitutes a minor offence. Accordingly, in light of the above legal and factual matrix, this court is of the view that since the prosecution has successfully established that the accused persons jointly assaulted Ct. Vikrant at FIR No. 825/13 PS Rajouri Garden Digitally State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr signed by Page 17 of 18 SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.12.11 13:30:39 +0530 the time of the alleged incident, they have committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to another person, which is punishable u/s 323/34 IPC. Additionally, since the prosecution has failed in establishing that injured / Ct. Vikrant was discharging his official duties at the time of alleged incident, there are no sufficient grounds to establish that they committed the offences u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC.
32. Resultantly, the accused persons- Himanshu Pal S/o Rajinder Pal and Abhishek Pal S/o Rajinder Pal stand convicted under the accusation of committing the offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC. It is made clear that, since the prosecution failed to establish that Ct. Vikrant was discharging his official duties at the time of the alleged incident, accused persons stand acquitted under the accusation of committing the offences u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC.
33. Bail bonds and surety bonds, if any, except furnished u/s 437A Cr.P.C stands cancelled. Case property, if any, shall be disposed off after the expiration of the period to assail the judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate court.
Digitally
signed by
SHASHANK
SHASHANK NANDAN
NANDAN BHATT
Signed & pronounced (Shashank
BHATT Nandan Bhatt)
Date:
2025.12.11
in Open Court JMFC-02/West/Delhi
13:30:48
+0530
On the 11th December, 2025. 11.12.2025
FIR No. 825/13
PS Rajouri Garden
State Vs. Himanshu Pal & Anr Page 18 of 18