Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/5284225/2016 on 6 December, 2018
State v. Ashok Kumar & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SADHIKA JALAN, MM06, NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
State v. Ashok Kumar & Anr.
FIR no. 152/2010 Date of Institution 06.06.2011
Police Station: Adarsh Nagar Judgement Reserved on 25.10.2018
Sections 332, 353 and 506(II) read Date of Judgment 06.12.2018
with Section 34 of IPC
JUDGMENT
a) Serial Number of the case 5284225/16 b) Date of offence 08.06.2010 c) Name of Complainant Constable Prakash Chand
d) Name and address of the 1. Ashok Kumar son of Ram accused Prakash, resident of House no. J7, Kewalpark, Azadpur, Delhi
2. Anish Ahmed son of Layik Ahmed, resident of R28, Gopal Nagar, Azadpur, Delhi33
e) Offences complained of Sections 332, 353 and 506(II) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
f) Plea of accused persons Not Guilty
g) Final Order Acquittal
h) Date of Order 06.12.2018 Brief reasons for the decision--
1. Succinctly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 08.06.2010 at about 12:15 PM at Road no.51, Near Delhi Jal Board FIR no. 152/10 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 1 of 10 State v. Ashok Kumar & Anr.
Office, Kewal Park, Delhi the accused persons assaulted and caused hurt to the complainant Constable Prakash Chand while he was performing his duties. They also threatened the to kill the complainant.
2. Upon investigation, chargesheet was filed by the police. Thereafter, accused persons were supplied documents in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CrPC). Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, and 506(II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) were framed against the accused persons vide order dated 27.04.2012. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined eight witnesses. As the first witness prosecution has examined Prahlad, the crane driver, as PW1. He stated that in the year 2010, he was on duty with the complainant Constable Prakash Chand and they were lifting vehicles parked in the 'no parking area' at Road no.51 near Delhi Jal Board Office, Kewal Park, Delhi. At about 12:10 PM, when he alongwith helper Kartik and complainant tried to tow a tempo, the accused came to his crane and opened the gate of the crane. Accused Anish started quarrelling with constable Prakash Chand and scuffled with him. Police was called. Thereafter police officials took accused Anish and Constable Prakash Chand to hospital. He also went to the police station with the crane. He stated that his statement was not recorded by the investigating officer. His signatures were not taken by the police on any document.
FIR no. 152/10 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 2 of 104. Since he was not disclosing complete facts, he was crossexamined by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for state after seeking permission of the Court. During his crossexamination, he admitted that on on the day of incident at about 12:15 PM when he alongwith complainant and helper Kartik were trying to tow the tempo bearing no. HR56B1337, accused Anish came there all of a sudden and started misbehaving with Constable Prakash Chand and also quarrelled with him. He admitted that accused Anish pushed Constable Prakash Chand. He denied however the suggestion that during the quarrel accused Ashok also came there and both of them beat Constable Prakash Chand. He was unable to recall whether the uniform of Constable Prakash Chand was torn during the quarrel. He admitted that accused Anish threatened the complainant. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not mention the name of the accused Ashok about his involvement in the quarrel as he had compromised the matter with the said accused. He also denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not disclosing the complete facts.
5. Duty office Head Constable Raj Rani was examined as PW2. She stated that on 08.06.2010 at about 12:30 PM she received information through the intercom regarding a quarrel at Azadpur Road no. 51, Delhi Jal Board, Delhi. She recorded DD no.15A in this regard. DD is Ex. PW2/A. On the same day, at about 5:05 PM Constable Subhash handed over rukka to her. She registered FIR no.152/10 based on this rukka. Copy of FIR is Ex. PW2/B and her endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW2/C. FIR no. 152/10 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 3 of 10 State v. Ashok Kumar & Anr.
6. Constable Subhash had accompanied the investigating officer during the course of investigation. He stated that on 08.06.2010 he alongwith Head Constable Pritam Singh reached at the spot. There they found the crane bearing no. DL1LG2652 along with its driver Prahlad and helper Kartik. Complainant also met them at the spot. They observed that the uniform of the complainant was torn. The shirt pocket, right shoulder, name plate and some buttons had been removed. Statement of complainant was recorded. He handed over the accused persons to Head Constable Pritam Singh. He got a FIR registered on the basis of the rukka given by the investigating officer. Thereafter further investigation was marked to Assistant Sub Inspector Pancham Singh. He alongwith second investigating officer reached at the spot. Second Investigating Officer seized the torn dress of the accused. Seizure memo is Ex. PW3/A. Both the accused persons were arrested. Arrest and personal search memos are Ex. PW3/B, Ex. PW3/C, Ex. PW3/D and Ex. PW3/E. Their disclosure statements were also recorded. He identified accused persons in court. He was not crossexamined on behalf of accused persons.
7. Assistant Sub Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Yadav got the medical examination of the complainant conducted on the instructions of the first investigating officer. He was examined by the prosecution as PW4. He stated that on 08.06.2010 on the directions of Head Constable Pritam, he reached at the spot and took the complainant for medical examination. He stated that the uniform of the complainant was torn from right shoulder and both the pocket FIR no. 152/10 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 4 of 10 State v. Ashok Kumar & Anr.
coverings were torn. His name plate was also dented. He identified the case property in court. He was not crossexamined by the accused.
8. The injured Prakash Chand was examined under the supervision of Dr. Deepak. He was examined as PW5. He stated that on 08.06.2010 the injured was brought in the hospital and was examined by Dr. Santosh under his supervision. Concerned MLC is Ex. PW5/A.
9. Sub Inspector Pancham Singh is the second investigating officer of the case. He was examined as PW6. He similarly deposed regarding manner of investigation and arrest of the accused as stated by PW3 Constable Subhash. He also identified the accused as well as case property in court. He was crossexamined at length by learned defence counsel.
10. Shri Amrik Singh is the concerned ACP who had issued sanction under Section 195 Cr. PC. He was examined as PW7. Complaint under Section 195 Cr. PC is Ex. PW7/A.
11.Lastly Head Constable Umesh was examined as PW8. He had produced the duty roaster of the complainant. He has produced copy of roznamcha register which is EX. PW8/A. This showed that on 08.06.2010, Constable Prakash Chand was deputed on crane duty at 8:05 AM.
12.Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed and the accused persons were examined under Section 313 read with Section 281, FIR no. 152/10 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 5 of 10 State v. Ashok Kumar & Anr.
CrPC on 27.09.2018. Accused persons opted not to lead defence evidence, hence defence evidence was closed.
13.Consequently, matter was fixed for hearing final arguments. Arguments of both the prosecution as well as the defence were heard at length. Record perused. Findings are as follows.
14.In a criminal case, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
15.Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to first examine the legal provisions at play. The necessary ingredients to prove the offence under section 506 (II) of IPC are--
(a) That threatening a person with any injury to his person, reputation or property.
(b) That threatening a person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
(c) That the threat must be with intent to cause alarm to that person, or
(d) That the threat must be with intent to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, or
(e) That the threat must be with intent to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
FIR no. 152/10 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 6 of 1016.To prove the offence under section 332 IPC, it is necessary for prosecution to prove--
(a) Causing hurt by a person to a public servant.
(b) The hurt is caused with intent to prevent or deter that public servant from discharging his duties as such public servant or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done in lawful discharge of his duties as such public servant.
(c) The hurt must be caused voluntarily.
17.Similarly, to prove the offence under section 353 of IPC, it is necessary to prove--
(a) Assault or use of criminal force to a public servant.
(b) This must be with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duties as such public servant or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done in lawful discharge of his duties as such public servant.
18.Furthermore, the prosecution has to establish that the act was done in unison or having common intention covered under Section 34 IPC. The prosecution therefore has to show--
(a) That the criminal act was done by several persons
(b) That the act was done in furtherance of their common intention.
19. Thus to substantiate its claim under the above Sections, it is first of utmost importance for the prosecution to show that the FIR no. 152/10 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 7 of 10 State v. Ashok Kumar & Anr.
injured/complainant was a public servant who was discharging or attempting to discharge a public function at the time of the incident.
20.In the instant matter, the prosecution has examined Head Constable Umesh as PW8 who has placed on record the roznamcha register to show that the complainant Constable Prakash Chand had been deputed to perform crane duty on the day of the incident. This though supports the prosecution story, however does not prove in fact that Constable Prakash Chand at the time of the incident was in fact performing this duty.
21.The most pertinent witness, i.e. Constable Prakash Chand was not examined by the prosecution. The only other eye witness to the incident examined is PW1. Prahalad in his testimony deposed that in the year 2010, he used to drive a private crane bearing no. DL 1LG 2652. He stated that on the day of the incident he was lifting vehicles parked in the no parking zone near Delhi Jal Board, Kewal Park, Delhi. He has not shown that he was working for the government in any official capacity. He merely stated that on instructions of Constable Prakash Chand he was towing vehicles from the no parking zone. Thus, the prosecution has not established without doubt that constable Prakash Chand was in fact performing the public duty assigned to him.
22.PW1 further stated that accused Anish came to the spot and started quarrelling with Constable Prakash Chand. In his testimony despite questions by the public prosecutor he denied the presence of any other accused person at the spot. It is also pertinent to note that the FIR no. 152/10 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 8 of 10 State v. Ashok Kumar & Anr.
witness made no mention of the uniform of the complainant getting torn.
23.The witness seems to suffer from a selective memory of the incident when he is deposing before the Court and is complete diversion from his earlier statement given to the police under Section 161 CrPC.
24.The testimony of this witness thus, does not inspire confidence. All other witnesses examined are witnesses to the investigation which has happened post the occurrence of the incident. No other witness has been examined by the prosecution who could have proved the events which occurred on the day.
25.It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. No matter how weak the defence of accused persons, the golden rule of the Criminal Jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own legs. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur, VIII(2007) SLT 454(SC). In the instant matter, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused persons are thereby acquitted.
26.Surety bond and personal bond stands cancelled. Surety is discharged. Endorsement on surety's documents if any be cancelled and original documents if any of surety retained on record be returned to the person entitled legally.
FIR no. 152/10 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 9 of 1027.As per section 437A of the CrPC, as amended vide the Amendment Act, which came into force on 31.12.2009, the accused as well as the surety shall remain bound by the personal and the surety bond respectively for a period of six months from today.
28. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in Open Court on 06.12.2018 Sadhika Jalan MM06/North District Rohini/06.12.2018 Certified that this judgment contains 10 pages and each page bears my signature.
Sadhika Jalan
MM06/North District
Rohini/06.12.2018
FIR no. 152/10
Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 10 of
10