Delhi District Court
State vs Krishan Kumar on 31 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIGYA GUPTA,
ACJM : NORTH EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR Cases:1130/2016
STATE Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR
FIR No: 79 /2013
PS: (Sonia Vihar)
1. FIR No. of the case : 79/2013
2. Date of commission of offence : 08.04.2013
3. Date of institution of the case : 06.04.2016
4. Name of the complainant : HC AJAY SINGH
5. Name of accused & address : Krishan Kumar
S/o Lt. Rajender Singh
R/o B-150, G.No.1, 2nd
Pushta, Sonia Vihar,
Delhi
6. Offence charged with : U/s.186/353/427/506 IPC
& 3 PDPP Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Date of final arguments : 11/07/2024
9. Name of Ld.Counsels for parties : Sh.Abhishek Pandey,
Ld. APP for State
Sh. Narender Thakur,
Ld.Counsel for accused
State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 1/18
10. Final Order : Accused is convicted
for the offences made
punishable U/s 186/353
IPC and he stands
acquitted for the
offences made
punishable U/s 506/427
IPC & 3 PDPP Act.
11. Date of Judgment : 31/07/2024
JUDGMENT :
1. Prosecution has alleged that on 08.04.2013, at 12.20 p.m at Nanaksar Police Picket, Head Constable Ajay Singh along with the staff were detailed in P.V. Banker-29 from 8 a.m to 8 p.m in the P.S Sonia Vihar, Delhi and this PV was detailed for joint checking with HC Satya Prakash (Traffic Police) as well as HC Udayvir and Ct. Sanjeev from 12 p.m to 2 p.m. At about 12.20 p.m, HC Satya Prakash challaned the complainant U/s 128/177 M.V. Act who was riding the motorcycle bearing RC No. DL5SSA-5075 with two pillion riders (who were women). Then accused thereafter started abusing the police officials and removed barricade from the road. He then manhandled Ct. Sanjeev and caught hold of his collar. He also pushed him towards the barricade. The accused then threatened to kill Ct. Sanjeev. The accused had also damaged a government vehicle by breaking/shattering the window pane of the PCR Van. The accused thus manhandled Ct. Sanjeev and also caused obstruction in the successful performance of the lawful duties by the PCR staff. Since the accused also damaged a State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 2/18 government vehicle allegations U/s 186/353/427/506 IPC & 3 PDPP Act have been levelled against the accused.
2. Accused appeared before this Court and after compliance under Section 207 IPC, charge Under Section U/s 186/353/427/506 IPC & 3 PDPP Act was framed against him, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To discharge its onus, prosecution examined seven witnesses.
4. A brief summary of prosecution evidence is as follows: -
Sr. Witness name Witness Remarks No. no.
1. ASI PW-1 He deposed that on 08.04.2013, Satyaprakah he alongwith Ct. Sanjeev and HC Udyaveer Singh from PS Sonia Vihar and two staff from PCR Namely, HC Ajay Kumar and Ct. Pradeep Kant were checking the vehicles at Nanaksar Police Booth. At about 12:30 p.m. one person namely Krishan Kumar was coming by motorcycle make Bajaj Pulsar from Sonia Vihar Side towards Wazirabad and two ladies were also riding with him.
They stopped the said motorcycle due to triple riding and he challaned the accused due to triple riding. Accused had sent both the ladies to their respective State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 3/18 home and said that he would handle the situation. Book no.
13082 could not be produced as the same had been destoyed vide order of DCP (Traffic). Copy of the said order is Mark X1.
2. ASI Ajay PW-2 He is complainant of the case.
Singh He inter-alia deposed about the facts of the case. He claimed that on 08.04.2013 he was posted in PCR NE Zone as HC. On that day his duty hours were from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. On that day on the direction of senior officials there was a joint checking with PCR, local police and traffic police at Nanksar picket from 12 noon to 2 pm. At around 12:20 p.m. he saw a motorcycle bearing no.
DL-5SAA-5075 make Bajaj Pulsar of Black colour coming from Sonia Vihar side towards Nanksar Gurudwara and the same was driven by triple riding i.e. one driver and two pillion rider ladies. Ct. Sanjeev from local police stopped the motorcycle riders and challaned the motorcyclist for tripling. The motorcyclist made call to someone. After sometime the accused Krishan Kumar returned back to the spot again and while they were stopping the passengers and other vehicles for checking, he started shouting by saying "In haramzado ko paise chahiye koi ni rukna sab bhago yahan se, tum mera sath do to State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 4/18 mein inhe aisa challan karna sikhaunga ki ye yahan kabhi challan nahi karenge aor ainda nazar nahi ainge". Accused pushed and scattered the barricade put at the spot for the purpose of checking. When Ct.
Sanjeev tried to stop the accused from doing so, accused grabbed the collar of the uniform of Ct.
Sanjeev and threw him towards the barricade. Accused also extended threat to Ct. Sanjeev by saying "tu kisi din akela mil na tera pyet (stomach) phad dunga". Accused also hit his head on the left widow pane of the PCR due to which it was broken. After 20 minutes of his call, IO SI Mohd. Ismile came at the spot. Accused was arrested, his personal search was conducted. IO seized broken glass of window of PCR van.
Supplementary statement of the witness was also recorded. He duly identified the case property in the court.
3. HC Sanjeev PW-3 He also deposed on the lines of PW-2. He was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the state as he was not disclosing the complete facts.
4. Retd. SI PW-4 He deposed that on 08.04.2013 Mohd. Ismail on receipt of DD No. 15A, SI Mohd. Israil alongwith Ct. Rinku reached at the spot where complainant HC Ajay Singh met and recorded his statement. HC State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 5/18 Ajay also produced the accused before him. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo, personally searched him vide personal search memo. He also recorded disclosure statement of the accused. He collected the glass shreds and seized the same vide seizure memo. He also prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. He produced the accused before the concerned court on 09.04.2013. Thereafter he was transferred.
He could not identify the accused due to lapse of time. He identified the case property. He was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the state and he identified the accused on cross-examination by Ld.APP for the State.
5. Retd. ACP PW-5 He deposed that on 29.03.2016 Rakesh he was posted as ACP Eastern Kumar Range. On that day he had given permission u/s 195 CrPC sought by the IO of the present case.
6. SI Shiv PW-6 He produced Rojnamcha Kumar Register containing DD No. 14 B recorded at Page no. 36 on 08.04.2013.
7 Insp. Arvind PW-7 Further investigation of the case Kumar was marked to him. During investigation, he checked the file and found that complaints u/s 195 CrPC from traffic police, local police and PCR unit are pending. On 29.03.2016, 30.03.2016 and 05.04.2016 he obtained the pending complaints State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 6/18 from the concerned offices of ACP traffic, ACP PCR and ACP Khajuri Khas. After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the court concerned on 06.04.2016.
5. Prosecution has also relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Items Exhibits
1 Statement of ASI Ajay Singh Ex. PW2/A
2 Seizure memo of pieces of window glasses Ex. PW2/B
of PCR Van
3 Arrest memo and personal search memo of Ex. PW2/C
accused Surender Chaurasiya and Ex.
PW2/D
4 DD entry 15A Ex. PW4/A
5 Disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW4/B
6 Site plan of the spot. Ex. PW4/C
7 Original copy of report Ex. PW5/A
8 DD entry 14B Ex. PW6/A
9 Copy of DD entry 14B registered in Ex. PW6/B
rojnamcha
10 Disclosure statement of accused Pramod Ex. PW3/E
Chaurasiya.
Accused admitted following document
vide his statement U/s 294 Cr.P.C
1. Copy of FIR (without admitting the Ex. A1.
contents therein) State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 7/18
6. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
7. Accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and he has denied all the allegations and stated that IO has implicated him falsely in the present case. He has led DE in his defence.
8. DW-1 is accused Krishan Kumar himself and DW-2 is his wife Ms. Lata.
9. DW-1 deposed that about 12-13 years back at around 12-12:30 p.m, he alongwith his sister and wife were going on his bike bearing no. DL-55AA 5075 (PULSAR 180) towards Nank Sar to drop his sister. He was stopped by police official and thereafter he was challaned in the sum of Rs. 100/-. He paid the fine but Sanjeev and Satya Prakash (both police officials) misbehaved with his wife and passed comments on her. He objected to the same. Thereafter they started beating him and forcibly tried to take him in their car. Ct. Sanjeev called PCR van and he alongwith other police officials hit him with rifle on his arms and body. The glass of the PCR van was broken by rifle while they were beating him. They were trying to hit him but mistakenly it hit the glass of the PCR Van. Thereafter they took him to PS Sonia Vihar. He had given a written complaint, copy of which is Ex.DW1/1. He was wrongly challaned by the police and the copy of the same is Ex.DW1/2.
10. DW-2 Ms. Lata. She is wife of the accused/DW-1. She also deposed on the same lines as DW-1.
State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 8/18
11. I have heard the final arguments and have perused the record.
12. I have thoroughly cogitated over the submissions made by Ld. APP for the state and ld. Counsel for the accused. At this juncture, it is prudent to discuss the penal provisions the accused is charged with. The penal provisions are reproduced in verbatim:-
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 fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
353 IPC. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses crimi-
nal force to any person being a public servant in the execu- tion of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to pre- vent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or at- tempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with im- prisonment of either description for a term which may ex- tend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 427 IPC Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees: Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 506 IPC - Punishment for criminal intimidation.-- Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison-ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.-- And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with im- prisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 9/18 impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with im- prisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 3 in The Prevention Of Damage To Public Property Act, 1984
3. Mischief causing damage to public property (1) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine.
(2) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property being (a) any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy; (b) any oil installations; (c) any sewage works; (d) any mine or factory;(e) any means of public transportation or of tele- communications, or any building, installation or other property used in connection therewith, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine:Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six month"
13. The prosecution, in light of the above provisions, had to prove the following:-
● Firstly, the complainant HC Ajay Singh, HC Satya Prakash, HC Udayvir and Ct Sanjeev were public servants and were discharging public function at the time of incident;
● Secondly, that the accused had voluntarily obstructed the police officials while they were discharging public function;
Thirdly, the accused had voluntarily assaulted and used crimi nal force against Ct Sanjeev with an intent to deter him from discharging his public function;
State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 10/18 Fourthly, the accused has caused hurt to Ct Sanjeev ;
Fifthly, the accused caused actual destruction of any property and damage for an amount more than Rs. 50/- with the intention/knowledge that the same is likely to be caused.
Sixthly, the accused had committed mischief in respect to public property i.e. the PCR Van.
Seventhly, the accused had criminally intimidated Ct. Sanjeev by extending threat to cause death.
14. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused. My observations on the evi-
dence led in the trial are delineated hereinafter.
15. At the outset, it is crucial to highlight that it is neces- sary for the prosecution to establish that the complainant and the po- lice officials were discharging their official duties as public servants when the accused committed offences with which he is charged in the present case i.e. section 186 IPC and section 353 IPC.
16. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a three judges bench judgment in a case titled "Durgacharan Naik And Ors. Vs. State of Orissa, 1996 AIR 1775":− "It is true that most of the allegations in this case upon which the charge under Section 353, Indian Penal Code is based are State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 11/18 the same as those constituting the charge under 186, Indian Penal Code but it cannot be ignored that Section 186 and 353, Indian Penal Code relate to two distinct offences and while the offence under the latter section is a cognizable offence, the one under the former section is not so. The ingredients of the two offences are also distinct. Section 186, Indian Penal Code is applicable to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the discharge of his public functions but un- der Section 353, Indian Penal Code the ingredient of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary. The quality of the two offences is also different. Section 186 occurs in Ch. X of the Indian Penal Code dealing with Contempt of the lawful authority of public ser- vants, while Section 353 occurs in Ch. XVI regarding the of- fences affecting the human body. It is well−established that Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same set of facts but which is not within the ambit of that section."
17. In the present case, a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C was made by Assistant Commissioner of Police, eastern range:PCR, Delhi, who was the senior officer of the complainant at the relevant time. The said complaint is Ex. PW5/A. Therefore, com- pliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C has been done in the present case.
18. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses and PW1 ASI Satya Prakash, PW2 ASI Ajay Singh and PW3 HC San- jeev are the eye witnesses/victim who were present at the spot at the time of the incident.
State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 12/18
19. First and foremost, before delving into the ingredients of specific offences of which the accused is charged with, his iden- tity as an assailant is required to be proved beyond the pale of rea- sonable doubt by the prosecution.
20. For the above-said purpose, the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 is minutely scrutinised. The witnesses have sup- ported the prosecution's version and have identified the accused be- fore the court. The witnesses have categorically stated that they were present at the spot on the date of the incident and were discharging their official duties since they were jointly checking the vehicles at Nanaksar picket From 12 noon to 2 PM. The testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 is very much on the same lines and stands in conso- nance. They have deposed that at about 12:30 PM, the accused Kis- han Kumar was stopped due to triple riding and was accordingly challaned by ASI Satya Prakash. The accused thereafter starting misbehaving with the police officials. It has been categorically de- posed by the witnesses that the accused started obstructing the po- lice officials in the discharge of their duty while they were stopping other vehicles for checking. PW2 and PW3 have deposed that the ac- cused was shouting and saying "In haramzado ko paise chahiye koi ni rukna sab bhago yahan se, tum mera sath do to mein inhe aisa challan karna sikhaunga ki ye yahan kabhi challan nahi karenge aor ainda nazar nahi ainge" he then grabbed the collar of the uniform of constable Sanjeev and pushed him towards the barricade due to which PW3 head constable, Sanjeev fell on the barricade.
State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 13/18
21. Pertinent is to note that the accused in statement under section 313 Cr.P.C and in his defence evidence has admitted that he was present at the spot and was stopped by the police officials. He has admitted that he was challaned for triple riding. The presence of the accused at the spot is thus not disputed and is duly proved.
22. Now, in order to prove the offence punishable U/s 186 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the complaint and vic- tim are public servants and were performing their official duty at the time of incident. It is further required to prove that public servants were obstructed and prevented from discharging public function by the accused and also that hurt was caused to HC Sanjeev. In the present factual matrix, PW1, PW2 and PW3 have deposed that on the date of the incident, they along with head constable Uday Veer Singh, constable Pradeep kant were conducting joint checking of the vehicles. PW6 SI Shiv Kumar has duly proved the DD no 14B dated 08/04/13 exhibit PW6/ A and exhibit PW6/ B vide which head con- stable Uday Veer and ct Sanjeev had left for nanaksar picket. Hence, it is proved the Police officials were on duty at the relevant time.
23. It is deposed by the witnesses that since the accused started fighting with and manhandling constable Sanjeev and broke the glass of the PCR van, PW2 ASI Singh informed the control room by wireless. PW4 retired SI Mohammed Ismail proved DD number 15 A dated 08/04/13, as exhibit PW4/A, which further forti- fies the version of the prosecution.
State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 14/18
24. The testimony of PW-2 & PW-3 is corroborated by FIR (Ex. A1) as per Section 157 Indian Evidence Act. Statements of the complainant were promptly recorded and there was no delay in the registration of the FIR. The testimony of PW-1,PW-2 & PW-3 as led before the Court is devoid of any material contradictions. PW-2 has maintained complete fidelity to his earlier statement i.e. PW-2/A. The complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C., has been filed alongwith the charge-sheet which contains a request for initiating prosecution under sections 186/353/427/506 IPC and 3PDPP act against the ac- cused. Considering holistically, the prosecution is able to discharge its burden as far as offence u/s 186 IPC is concerned.
25. As regards the offence punishable u/s 353 IPC, the prosecution needs to establish that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to a public servant in discharge of his official duty and had also intentionally assaulted or used criminal force against said public ser- vant. The testimony of PW-2 & PW-3 is again delved into for estab- lishing the offences under section 353 IPC. The witnesses have testi- fied that the accused was obstructing them from carrying out their official duties, and when constable, Sanjeev tried to stop the ac- cused, the accused grabbed the collar of his uniform and pushed him towards the barricades due to which constable Sanjeev fell on the barricades. The testimony of PW2 and PW3 is very much in conso- nance and there are no material contradictions that appear in their testimony.
State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 15/18
26. The witnesses have successfully withstood the test of cross-examination. The deliberation of the entire evidence tendered on behalf of the prosecution would reveal that the prosecution has successfully proved the fact that the accused had a scuffle with PW-
3. It has also been proven beyond doubt that the accused had used criminal force against PW-3 and caused hurt to him while he was performing his duty in order to deter him from discharging the said duty. Hence, offence punishable u/s 353 IPC stands proved against the accused Krishan Kumar.
27. As far as offence of mischief punishable under section 427 IPC and offence for damaging public property under section 3, PDPP Act is concerned, the actual damage/loss has to be shown by the prosecution for securing the conviction of the accused. In the case at hand, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused had hit his head on the left window pane of the PCR van thereby breaking the glass of the window. The said version of the prosecution seems highly improbable. Firstly, PW2 and PW3, have deposed that the ac- cused assaulted PW3 Sanjeev whereafter, the staff present at the spot tried to stop and apprehend the accused. It is specifically deposed by PW2 that the staff of local police, PCR and the traffic police was present at the spot and tried to apprehend the accused after he as- saulted constable Sanjeev. If the police officials present at the spot had tried to stop the accused and had apprehended him, how could the accused have escaped the entire staff and hit his head in the win- dow pane of the PCR van. The version so stated by PW2 and PW3 thus seems questionable. Furthermore, it also seems doubtful as to State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 16/18 whether the window pane of the PCR could be shattered into pieces by a single hit of head by the accused, even so when the accused has not sustained even a single injury after hitting his head in the window pane. It is an admitted fact that no injury was sustained by the accused. It eludes sense as to how could the accused not have suffered a single injury after having hit the widow pane with such intense force which resulted in the shattering of the window pane. Thus, considering the shadow of doubt lurking on the version of the prosecution in respect to the alleged offences, the accused deserves the benefit of doubt and he is accordingly acquitted of offence U/s 427 IPC and Section 3 PDPP Act.
28. As far as Section 506 IPC is concerned, PW2 in his tes- timony claimed that the accused had threatened Ct. Sanjeev saying 'tu kisi din akela milna tera pait faad dunga". It is crucial to note that PW3 Ct. Sanjeev, in his testimony has merely deposed that the accused caught hold of his collar and threatened him. There is not even a whisper in respect to any threat to kill being extended by the accused. PW1 ASI Satya Prakash has also not deposed about any such threat being extended by the accused.
29. Furthermore, it is settled law that mere threat is not sufficient to attract Section 506 IPC, as the said threat should cause alarm in the mind of the victim which should lead him to do or omit to do some act so as to avoid the execution of the threat. There is nothing to suggest that any such alarm was caused in the mind of the victim in this case. The victim Ct. Sanjeev has not State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 17/18 averred any fact in his testimony in respect to the threat or any such alarm caused due to the said threat of the accused. Thus, in my opin- ion, accused herein is entitled to be acquitted U/s 506 IPC. It is or- dered accordingly.
30. In light of the aforesaid discussion, accused herein is convicted for the offences made punishable U/s 186/353 IPC and he stands acquitted for the offences made punishable U/s 506/427 IPC & 3 PDPP Act.
Digitally signedPRIGYA by PRIGYA GUPTA ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT GUPTA Date: 2024.07.31 On 31/07/2024 17:22:36 +0530 (PRIGYA GUPTA) ACJM (NORTH EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI State Vs. Krishan Kumar FIR no. 79/2013 Sonia Vihar Page no. 18/18