Delhi District Court
State vs Taj Mohd on 12 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHRUTI SARASWAT, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-03, NORTH-EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. TAJ MOHD
DLNE020012402013
F.I.R. No.: 210/2011
Police Station: Gokalpuri
State Vs. Taj Mohd.
U/s 186/353 IPC
(a) Case ID number/CR No. : 465154/2015
(b) Date of commission of the : 25.06.2011
offence
(c) The name of the complainant : Dr. Prahlad, Veterinary
Officer, Gazipur Slaughter
House, EDMC, Shahdara,
South Zone, Delhi.
(d) The name of the accused, : Taj Mohd. S/o Allah Mehar,
parentage and residence R/o B-1/27, Chand Bagh,
Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of : Under Section 186/353 IPC
(f) Charge-sheet filed on : 08.05.2013
(g) Charge/notice framed on : 07.05.2014
(h) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 1 of 21
(i) The final order : Acquittal
(j) The date of such order : 12.02.2026
(k) State represented by : Sh. Mohit, Ld. APP for
State.
(l) Accused represented by : Sh. Sarfarz Asif, Ld.
Counsel for accused.
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Briefly put, the case of the prosecution is that on 08.06.2011, Dr. Prahlad Kumar alongwith his staff were on regular checking at Mustafabad and they saw that some animals i.e. 6 buffalloes and 4 calves were found tied for illegal slaughtering. They tried to rescue those animals when accused Taj Mohd. came there and said that ' You have no right to seize the animals intended for illegal slaughtering" and shouted upon the complainant-Dr. Prahlad Kumar and his staff. Accused obstructed and manhandled the complainant in performing his official duty. Complainant made a call at number 100. Police went there and lodged the complaint Ex. PW1/A. After conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "Cr.PC").
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 186/353 IPC. Cognizance of offence FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 2 of 21 was taken on 08.05.2013 on the complaint filed by the Deputy Director, veterinary Department on 09.11.2012 Ex. PW-6/B. Accused was summoned and on his appearance, copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COURT
3. After completion of scrutiny of documents, vide order dated 07.05.2014, charge for committing offence punishable u/s 186/353 IPC was framed by Ld. Predecessor against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
DEPOSITION OF PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES:
4. The prosecution has examined six witnesses to support it case.
5. PW-1 Dr. Prahlad Kumar deposed that on 08.06.2011, he alongwith his staff went on regular checking at Mustafbad and they saw that some animals, total 10, were tied there with the intention for illegal slaughtering. They tried to rescue those animals but the public persons were gathered there and accused Taj Mohd. came there and said that 'You have no right to seize the animals intended for illegal slaughtering.
He shouted upon him and his staff and an altercation has been started. A huge amount of public persons were gathered there and they managed to snatch six buffalloes from the aforesaid 10 animals from them. He and his staff somehow managed to retain four buffalo calves in their possession and they seized the same and sent to Timarpur Cattle Pond for FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 3 of 21 further action. He had made a call at 100 number and police came there. He went to PS and lodged the complaint Ex. PW1/A. Police prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/B on his instance. He had correctly identified the accused.
In his cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that he does not know whether any documents with respect to intimation to senior official has handed over to the IO. They do not inform the local police station prior to inspection. He also stated that he checked meat shops and illegal slaughtering of animals. They checked two place at Gokalpuri and they checked both meat shops and illegal slaughtering where they found nothing. They reached at Gokalpuri at 5:40 AM. The animals were found gathered in the plot. He felt said cattle were for slaughter as in nearby area slaughtering takes place. No instrument for slaughtering was found at the spot. He made complaint to police on the same day. He was discharged on 08.03.2017.
6. PW-2 Sh. Kalicharan has deposed that on 08.07.2011, he was posted as Cattle Catcher, MCD Delhi, Shahdra, North Zone, Delhi. He alongwith Dr. Prahlad and other staff at about 6 AM eached at New Mustafabad, Delhi where four buffalow calves were caught. They loaded the same in a truck and locked the cattle farm. When he tried to catch other cattle, public persons gathered there and started shouting. He had correctly identified the accused.
PW-2 was then cross-examined by Ld. APP for state as he resiled from his previous statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He denied that FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 4 of 21 councillor Taj Mohd. came at the spot and. He denied that he had stated to the police that "Accused Taj Mohd. ne hamare khilaf public ko bharkakar hamari sarkri duty mein badha utpan ki aur Apni duty karne ke liye rukawat paida ki. He denied that his statement was recorded. Despite opportunity, PW-2 was not cross-examined by accused and was discharged on 14.12.2017.
7. PW-3- Chetram Meena has deposed that on 08.06.2011, he was posted at Shahdara, North Zone, MCD as Milk Tax Inspector and he alongwith Dr. Prahlad with staff and police personals reached at H.No.215, Gali NO.5, Mustafabad, Delhi for checking. They found that 10 buffaloes were tried there for illegal slaughtering. When they started seizing the said buffaloes, counselor Taj Mohd. Arrived there and started instigating the mob and told us MCD ko kinda pashuo ko vadh karne se rokne ka koid haq hani hai and started shouting at them and four buffaloes were snatched by accused from them and the accused had obstructed them in discharge of their public duty. He has identified the accused in his testimony.
In the cross-examination, PW3 has stated that Dr. Prahlad had given a letter to the police in PS for conducting this raid one week prior to conducting the raid. An entry is made by the department whenever they go for any raid. He does not know whether any entry was made on that day by Dr. Prahlad or not. They reached in DCP office at about 5:00 AM in a government vehicle. The entries were made in DCP office regarding our arrival and departure with police force. They directly reached reached at the spot as it was already decided to raid at the spot.
FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 5 of 21 They reached at the spot there were many butchers who were slaughtering the buffaloes and all of them fled away from the spot after leaving their tools of slaughtering. They were slaughtering buffaloes in a big hall and alive 10 buffaloes were also tied there. The owner of the hall was present there there. He does not remember the name of the owner of the said hall but his name was recorded in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The said hall was sealed by police and MCD. Police had recorded his statement in PS on the same day. He was discarded on 30.11.2023.
8. PW-4-Sh. Mahender Kumar has deposed on the same lines as PW-1 and PW-3, that he has been informed one day prior to the raid and he reached at the spot directly. They recovered four animals from there. He has identified the accused correctly.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that the spot was a open plot there and 10-15 animals were tied there. He does not know about the ownership of that plot and the animals. No tools of slaughtering were found there. He was discharged on 26.03.2025.
9. PW-5 Sh. Satyavir Singh has deposed that on the same lines as PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 that when they reached the spot, they found 10-15 buffaloes and calves for illegal slaughtering. They caught fourr from above said buffaloes and calves from the above said house. One Taj Mohd. came there and he tried to instigate the mob and started shouting and they tried to snatched the buffaloes and calves which were captured by them. He has correctly identified the accused in his testimony.
In the cross-examination, PW5 has stated that the spot was FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 6 of 21 plot covered with the boundary all of about 9-10 ft. Only 3 officials went inside the plot and they remained there for about 10 minutes and he remained out side the plot for about 1 hour. He was not aware whether any documentary was done by the senior officer there in that duration. They only took peacefully four live animals in the truck and left the spot within 15 minutes after officials came outside of the plot. There was no incident of quarreling or causing disobedience in discharge public duty in his presence. He was discharged on 30.01.2025.
10. PW-6 Inspector Divyansh has deposed that on 08.06.2011, he was posted at SI and Dr. Prahlad had filed a complaint Ex. PW1/A to SHO. On direction of superior officer, the FIR in this case was registered on 25.06.2011 and the case was marked to him for further investigation. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/B at the instance of Dr. Prahlad. He formally arrested the accused by calling him in PS vide Ex. PW6/A. He informed the concerned authorities i.e. Mayor regarding the arrest of accused Vide Mark-X. He obtained sanction u/s 195 Cr.P.C. to prosecute the accused vide letter no.403/Dy Dir.(VS)/Shah (N)/Zone/2012 dated 09.11.2012 vide Ex.PW6/B. He has correctly identified the accused.
In the cross-examination, PW6 has stated that the spot was an open area. There is no seizure memo of any live animals or slaughtered animals in the file provided by the MCD staff or prepared by him. Accused was not shown to the witnesses during investigation by him. There is no DD entry of any call record pertaining to the information of the incident. He was discharged on 30.01.2025.
FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 7 of 21
11. The other witnesses were dropped vide order dated 30.01.2025 as the genuineness of the documents to be proved by those witness was admitted by accused. Accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 26.03.2025.
In view of the directions passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of "Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) vs. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 1433", the Appendix containing the tabular chart of witnesses and documents is annexed at the conclusion of the judgment.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.PC
12. Upon completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC read with Section 281 Cr.PC was recorded on 08.08.2025. The accused denied the allegations and pleaded innocence and opted not to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
13. It is argued by Ld. counsel for accused that accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and accused deserves acquittal.
14. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. APP for State that the prosecution has proved its case by leading cogent evidence and reliable FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 8 of 21 witnesses. It is argued that conviction can be based on the basis of testimonies of the witnesses.
15. I have considered the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for State well as Ld. defence counsel and have perused the material available on record carefully.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND REASONS FOR DECISION
16. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the Prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent, and convincing evidence. It is also settled that primary burden of proof for proving offence in a criminal trial rest on the shoulders of the Prosecution. It must be seen whether the prosecution had been able to establish the actus reus as well as the mens rea of the accused in the present case and that the case against the accused is established beyond all reasonable doubts.
17. Before the appreciation of evidences, it would be apposite to reproduce the provisions for which the accused has faced trial:
"186. 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. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty: Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 9 of 21 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".
18. The import of both these sections is to punish persons who create obstruction in the discharge of duties of public servants. While Section 186 IPC envisages merely voluntary obstruction, section 353 IPC lays down an additional condition that such obstruction must be caused by assaulting or using criminal force against the public servant. In fact, the distinction between these two provisions has been clearly borne out in Durgacharan Naik & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1966 SC 1775 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following words:
"5.....It is true that most of the allegations in this case upon which the charge under Section 353, Indian Penal Code is based are the same as those constituting the charge under Section. 186, IPC but it cannot be ignored that Sections 186 and 353, IPC 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 under 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 contempts of the lawful authority of public servants, while Section 353 occurs in Ch. XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body."
FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 10 of 21
19. In the instant case, the court is posed with following questions for determination to adjudge the veracity of prosecution case:
(a) Whether the complainant namely Dr. Prahlad and his staff were public servants at the time of alleged commission of offences in question?
(b) Whether the said persons were acting in discharge of their public functions assigned to them?
(c) whether any obstruction or deterrence was caused to the said persons in the discharge of their public functions by the act of accused?
(d) (i) for the purpose of Section 186 IPC, whether the complaint was filed before this court u/S 195 Cr.P.C?
(ii) for the purpose of Section 353 IPC, whether the accused had assaulted or used any criminal force to the said persons during the execution of their duties?
20. It is a paramount tenet of criminal law that every accused is presumed to be innocent and cannot be convicted unless the prosecution is able to discharge the initial onus rested upon it beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, the prosecution is under a bounden duty to prove all these points on the aforesaid standard to drive home the guilt of accused.
21. As regards the determination of Issue (a), there is ample evidence on record to prove that the complainant/PW1 Dr. Prahlad and his staff were public servants at the time when the acts allegedly constituting the offences in question were committed by the accused on FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 11 of 21 25.06.2011. Section 500 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 states that:
Every Councillor and every person referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (3) of section 3, the Commissioner, and every municipal officer and other municipal employee shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
22. It has come in evidence of PW1 Dr. Prahlad Kumar that he was Veterinary Officer in MCD and was on duty on the said date. At no point in time during the trial, the accused raised any dispute regarding the fact that they were public servants as not even a single suggestion to that effect was put in cross-examination of either of the witnesses. Hence, it is proved that Dr. Prahlad and his staff were public servants on 25.06.2011 when the incident in question took place.
23. As for the determination of Issue (b), PW-1/Dr. Prahlad has deposed that he along with his staff went to a Regular checking in Mustafabad for meat shops and slaughterhouses. PW-3/Chetram Meena has deposed that the raid and regular checking was pre-planned and the letter to Police was sent one week before the same. All the PWs have consistently deposed that they were informed one day prior to conducting the raid and it was in the regular course of their public duty. Further, it is clear from the testimony of PW-1 that he along with cattle catchers and local police were conducting routine inspection in the area which falls in the description of their duty. However, the Prosecution has not placed on record any letter or permission or entry in office records. Also, no FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 12 of 21 document with respect to intimation to the higher officials about the routine inspection at 5:00 A.M has been provided by the complainant.
Thus, it is clear that conducting routine inspections for illegal slaughterhouses fall within the description of their public duties. No objection has also been raised by the accused on this point.
24. However, the issue as to whether at the time of incident, they were authorised to conduct the inspection or not requires some deliberation. It is a matter of record that the Prosecution has not brought any document which could show that the complainant was authorised to conduct inspection/raid at the early morning of the date of incident. Ld. APP for the state has submitted that it is in the job profile of the Veterinary Inspector to conduct surprise raids/inspections to keep a check on the illegal slaughterhouses. Further, from the testimonies of all the witnesses, it is clear that the raid was planned a week ago and the reminder was also shared by the complainant to all the staff members one night before the raid. The testimonies of all the witness remained consistent and unshakable at this point throughout the trial. Further, it is trite in law that presumption goes in the favour of the public servant that the act conducted by him was in lawful discharge of duties. The defence has also neither brought anything on record to rebut the presumption nor advanced any arguments to show that the complainant was not acting in discharge of their public duties. Therefore, it is proved without any doubt that complainant and his staff were acting in discharge of their official duties when the incident in question happened.
FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 13 of 21
25. Onto the determination of Issue (c), as to whether the conduct of accused was such as to lead obstruction in the duties of concerned public servant Dr. Prahlad Kumar; the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses assumes great significance. It is the case of prosecution that when complainant was performing his duty as Veterinary Inspector, they found some cattle tethered at the spot and suspected that they were for slaughtering. When they tried to rescue them, accused shouted which led to gathering of crowd and an altercation in which six cattles were snatched from them, which led to obstruction in their duties. In the judgment of Devendra Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025, SLP (Cr.) No. 12373 of 2025, Hon'ble SC has observed that:
"The word 'obstruction' in Section 186 of the I.P.C is not confined to physical obstruction only. Threats of violence made in such a way as to prevent the public servant from carrying out his duty might easily amount to an obstruction of the public servant."
26. Thus, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reproach that the act of the accused was such which led to obstruction in discharge of his public function by complainant/Dr. Prahlad. As per the testimony of PW-1; accused shouted that 'Aap ko zinda pashuon ko vadh karne se rokne ka koi Adhikar nhi hai'; because of which huge amount of public gathered there, got instigated and snatched six out of ten cattle from their possession. The same has been corroborated from the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4. It is pertinent to mention that PW-2/ Kalicharan had resiled from his previous statement during trial and has not supported the version of Prosecution. Also, as per the testimony of PW-5, he did not witness FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 14 of 21 anything as only three of the staff went inside the plot and as per him, 4 live animals were peacefully rescued by them and there was no incident of quarreling or disobedience caused to them.
27. It is clear from the evidence led by the Prosecution that there are certain contradictions within the testimony of the witnesses. To list a few, where PW-3 has deposed that when they reached at the spot, butchers were slaughtering the animals, none of the other witnesses including the complainant have corroborated to this statement. Rather, it is the case of Prosecution that no tools of slaughtering was found at the spot but there was apprehension that the cattle tethered there was for the purpose of illegal slaughter. Further, the testimonies have also vastly differed qua the spot of the incident as according to some of the testimonies, the spot was an open plot, for some it was a home and for PW-3, it was a hall which was seized by MCD and police. The prosecution has also failed to produce the seizure memo to corroborate the submission that 4 live animals were rescued by them and were sent to Cattle Pond, Timarpur. Furthermore, it is the case of Prosecution that accused managed to gather a huge crowd because of which they could not do their duty, but surprisingly, no person from that huge crowd has been examined by the Prosecution as a witness to corroborate their allegations.
28. The testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses is marred by multiple inconsistencies, which if read in isolation, by in itself does not impact the case of prosecution but considering them in toto casts a FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 15 of 21 shadow of doubt on the version of the prosecution. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 197 SCC (Crl.) 258 that, "the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution." Based on the above discussion, it cannot be unhesitatingly concluded that there was any obstruction and deterrence in the discharge of duties by complainant and other staff members by the voluntary acts of accused.
29. Nevertheless, for proving the charge of Section 186 IPC, there has to be fulfillment of the procedural requirement of section 195 Cr.P.C as well. This brings us to the point of determination of Issue (d) (i). As per Section 195(1)(a)(i), the cognizance for offence under Section 186 IPC could be taken only upon the written complaint of public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, the complaint u/S 195 Cr.P.C, Ex. PW6/B is on record. The same is signed by 'Deputy Director, Veterinary Services Department, Shahdara, North Zone' but whose name is not mentioned. In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979) 4 SCC 172, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after it is satisfied that the case for sanction has been made out. Further, in C.B.I./SPE, Hyderabad Vs. P.Muthuraman 1996 Cri LJ 3638, the Hon'ble HC of Andhra Pradesh has held that:
"[...]the signature on the sanction should be proved either by the sanctioning authority or by his subordinate officer or FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 16 of 21 clerk who has seen the sanctioning authority signing the sanction order or who is acquainted with the signature of the sanctioning authority. Merely filing the order purported to be the sanction order alleged to have been signed by the competent authority, does not discharge the burden of the prosecution in proving the sanction according to law."
Thus, it is clear that the mere placing on record of the complaint u/S 195 Cr.P.C would not suffice and that it should have been proved like any other written document in accordance with Section 67 read with Section 47 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The mere exhibiting of said document does not assist the case of prosecution as it is well settled that exhibiting of the document does not imply its proof.
30. However, in the present case, vide order dated 30.11.2025, the accused had admitted the genuineness of the document and had not raised any dispute against the same. Thus, in view of the sanction being admitted by the accused, the signing authority was not examined by the Prosecution.
31. In view of the above-mentioned discussion, it is clear that the Prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/S 186 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and thus, accused is acquitted of the said offence.
32. Coming to the last leg of our discussion i.e., for the determination of Issue (d) (ii), it has now to be seen if the accused had assaulted or used any criminal force to the complainant and his staff FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 17 of 21 during the execution of their duties so as to bring his act under the purview of Section 353 IPC. Relevant provisions are reproduced below:
Section 350. Criminal Force: Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
Section 351. Assault: Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault. Explanation: Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault.
33. In the case at hand, the conjoint reading of all the oral and documentary evidence, particularly of PW1/Complainant shows that none of the acts could be approximated as being criminal force. The Ld. APP has argued that the fact that because of words of the accused, huge crowd has gathered there and six live animals were snatched from them and thus, this act in itself amounts to criminal force. However, the same argument cannot be accepted as according to Section 349 IPC, force must be physical and caused to another person by own bodily power, by any substance or through an animal. As per thee material available on record, it is clear that the accused did not cause any force to complainant or his staff through any of these modes.
FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 18 of 21
34. Now, as far as allegation of assault goes, causing such a huge crowd to be gathered might have created apprehension that criminal force is about to be used against the complainant and his staff. However, Prosecution has failed to lead any cogent and reliable evidence to prove that such crowd had gathered and that it was gathered on instigation of accused and that such gathering created the apprehension to the complaint that criminal force is about to be used against him. Thus, the prosecution story falls short of satisfying the elements of assault or criminal force under Section 353 IPC. The accused deserves to be acquitted of the said offence as well.
35. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge of Section 186 IPC as they have failed to show that the act of accused caused obstruction in discharge of public duties. The charge of Section 353 IPC also fails owing to absence of any inculpatory act on the part of accused amounting to assault or criminal force, which is the prerequisite to convict a person under that provision. The basic ingredients of the offences have not been proved by prosecution so as to attract the offence of Section 186 and 353 IPC in he instant case. The inescapable conclusion is that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
36. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a case of "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55"
as under:-
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 19 of 21 establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
37. As the consequence to the above-said discussions, this court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt qua the offences punishable under Section 186 and 353 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused Taj Mohammad S/o Allah Mehar is acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 186 and 353 of India Penal Code, 1860.
38. Accused shall furnish personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety of like amount as per the mandate of Section 437A Cr.PC upon which previous bonds shall be cancelled and previous surety shall be discharged. Digitally signed by File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
SHRUTI
SHRUTI SARASWAT
Copy of the Judgment be given to accused free of
SARASWAT Date: cost.
2026.02.12
Announced in the open court 17:05:08
on 12.02.2026 +0530
(Shruti Saraswat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-03,
North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 20 of 21
APPENDIX
Witnesses examined as follows:
Prosecution Name of witness Description
Witnesses No.
1. Dr. Prahlad Kumar (Vet- Complainant
erinary Officer)
2. Sh. Kalicharan (Cattle Raiding Staff Member
catcher)
3. Sh. Chetram Meena Raiding Staff Member
4. Sh. Mahender Kumar, Raiding Staff Member
5. Sh. Satyavir Singh (cattle Raiding Staff Member catcher)
6. Inspector Divyansh IO of the case.
Exhibited documents
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/attested by
Ex. PW1/A Complaint PW1-Dr. Prahlad Kumar
Ex. PW1/B Site plan PW1-Dr. Prahlad Kumar
Ex. PW1/C Arrest memo PW1-HC Shailender
Ex.PW6/A Arrest memo PW6-Inspector Divyansh
Ex. PW6/B Ex. Sanction u/s 195 Cr.P.C. Admitted u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
PB vide letter NO.403/Dy.
Dir.(VS)/Shah(N)/Zone/
2012 dated 09.11.2012
Ex. PA FIR No.210/2011 dated Admitted u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
Digitally
25.06.2011 signed by
SHRUTI
SHRUTI SARASWAT
SARASWAT Date:
2026.02.12
17:05:22
(Shruti Saraswat)
+0530
Judicial Magistrate First Class-03,
North-East, KKD Courts, Delhi/12.02.2026
FIR No. 210/2011 State Vs. Taj Mohd PS: Gokalpuri Page no. 21 of 21