Delhi District Court
State vs . Anoop Singh on 26 September, 2012
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK : MM-07:
DELHI
State VS. Anoop Singh
FIR No: 578/98
P. S. : Patel Nagar
U/s : 186/332/353 of Indian Penal Code
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case and : 608/2
Date of institution : 16.08.1999
Name of the complainant : Sh.Ghanshyam
Date of Commission of offence : 18.08.1998
Name of the accuse : Anoop Singh
S/o Late Sh. Ram Kala
R/o House No. WZ-61, Shadi
Pur village, Patel Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained of : Under section186/332/353 of
Indian Penal Code
Plea of accused : Plead Not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of Institution of Case : 16.08.1999
Judgment Reserved : 26.09.2012
Date of Judgment : 26.09.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. The present case was registered against accused Anoop Singh on the allegation that on 18.08.1998 at about 11:30 AM at H.No. 2401/1 Shadi Pur, Patel Nagar, Delhi, the accused obstructed and assaulted the complainant Sh. Ghanshyam from discharging his duty as public servant and caused him injuries.
State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 1 of 8 -:2:-2. Charge sheet filed in the court and in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. copies of the documents were supplied. Thereafter charge Under Section 186/332/353 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused on 22.09.2000 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
4. PW1 Dr.G.Parkash deposed that on 18.08.98 injured Ghanshyam was brought to causality with alleged history of accident. In his opinion the injuries were simple in nature . His detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW1/A. In his cross examination he stated that there was no visible mark of injuries but patient might had sustained internal injuries.
5. PW2 Sh.Ghanshyam Dass deposed that on 18.08.1998 he was posted at Zone No.1304 District Moti Nagar, Naraina Phase-II as ALM-II. He stated on that day he alongwith Ali Hasan and Ram Nath went at Shadi Pur Main Market. He stated when they started repairing 10-12 persons assembled there and started beating them. He stated they returned to their office and went to PS Patel Nagar and got FIR registered. He stated he cannot identify those persons who gave beating to them and pelted stones on them. He stated they went to PS and got registered the FIR and put their signatures on certain papers.
6. PW 3 HC Rattan Singh deposed that on 18.08.1998 he was posted as Duty Officer at Police Station Patel Nagar and received rukka from Ct.Sanjay sent by HC Jaivinder Singh and on the basis of the same he registered FIR no.578/98.
In his cross examination he stated that he do not remember State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 2 of 8 -:3:- whether he had recorded the previous FIR No.578/98 of PS Patel Nagar.
7. PW4 Sh.P.S.Bhatia deposed that on 18.08.1998 he was posted as Asst. Engg. in DVB Zone no.1304, Dist. Moti Nagar, New Delhi . He stated that one person namely Ghanshyam was posted as Assitt. Line Man and Ali Hassan was posted as Black Smith. He stated he submitted the complaint U/S 195 Cr.P.C. before the court vide Ex.PW4/A . He stated he has not seen the incidents himself but Ghanshyam told all the facts to him.
8. PW5 Ali Hassan deposed that he was posted as Black Smith in the Delhi Vidyut Board . He stated he knew Ghahsyam ALM and Ram Nath ALM as both were posted in the same office as Assitt. Line Man. He stated 4/5 years back there was a complaint of Shadi Khampur area and he himself alongwith Ghanshyam and Ram Nath went to the Shadi Khampur area. He stated in the meanwhile he went to Shiv Chowk Area to see another complaint and Ghanshyam and Ram Nath went to the place of complaint at Shadi Khampur area. He stated after completion of his work when he came back at Shadi Khampur area he found that many persons were assembled there and conversation was going on between those persons and Ghanshyam and Ram Nath. He stated he has not seen any person abusing Ghanshyam and Ram Nath and also not seen any person assaulting them and obstructing them in their public duties.
As witness resiled from his previous statement he was cross examined by Ld.APP for State. In his cross examination by Ld.APP for State he denied the suggestion that Anoop Singh the owner of the house came at the spot and abused ALM Ghanshyam by his mother and sister's name and also told that why he had touched his meter State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 3 of 8 -:4:- and gave beating to Ghanshyam with fist blows, leg blows and with Danda.
9. PW6 Ram Nath deposed that on 18.08.1998 at about 11:30 AM he alongwith Ghanshyam and Ali Hasan reached at Shadipur Market but he do not remember the exact house number. He stated while they were repairing the electric meter inside the house of accused Anoop Singh , accused Anoop Singh came and stated that why they had touched his electric meter. Thereafter he started beating Ghanshyam with first blow and wooden danda. He stated Ghanshyam received injuries on his legs which was caused by accused Anoop Singh.
In his cross examination he stated that Ghanshyam Dass was repairing the electric meter. He stated it be correct that quarrel took place in his presence at the spot . He stated quarrel was started on the point that one meter was found in burn condition inside the house. He stated after this incident they proceeded to attend another complaint.
10. PW7 ASI Jaibinder Singh deposed that on 18.08.1998 on receipt of DD No. 14A Mark X1 regarding quarrel he alongwith Home Guard Constable Sanjay reached at the spot i.e H. No. 2401/1, Shadi Pur, Main Market, Delhi. He stated at the spot, one person namely Ghanshyam (DSU Employee), Ramnath (DSU Employee) and Ali Hasan Lohar (DSU Employee) met them. He stated Ghanshyam told him that they had arrived there on a complaint to repair the electricity and he also told the owner of H. No. 2401/1, namely Anup Singh had given beating to him. He prepared Rukka Ex. PW7/A and handed it over to Const. Sanjay for registration of FIR. He prepared site plan Ex. PW7/B. He went to RML Hospital where accused Anup was found State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 4 of 8 -:5:- admitted. He stated accused was discharged from the Hospital and he searched for the same but he was not traced. He stated on 14.09.1998, he arrested the accused vide Ex. PW7/C. He stated he collected complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC from B.S Bhatia.
In his cross examination he stated that only aforesaid complainant Ghanshyam (DSU Employee), Ramnath (DSU Employee) and Ali Hasan Lohar (DSU Employee) met him at the spot. He stated no external injury was found on the body of aforesaid Ghanshyam. He stated no danda was recovered from the spot. He stated both the aforesaid Ramnath and Ali Hasan Lohar told him that accused Anup gave beating to complainant Ghanshyam.
11. After recording the evidence of this witness, the prosecution evidence was closed. The accused Mohan Singh was examined under the provision of section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence were put to him where he denied the allegations raised against him and he choose not to lead defence evidence.
12. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and counsel for accused and perused the record.
13. It is argued by the Ld. APP for State that the case has been proved against the accused persons and there are no contradictions and dents in the testimony of witnesses and in view of the same there is no impediment in convicting the accused persons.
14. On the other hand it has been argued by the defence counsel that officials were not at duty at the time of incident and Section 332 is not made out as hurt is not proved and Section 353 is also not made out .
15. I have heard submissions of both the Ld.Counsels And Ld.APP for State and perused the records of the case.
State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 5 of 8 -:6:-16. The accused is charged with three different kinds of offences.
I will deal with all of them one by one.
17. Firstly, I come to the offence u/s 186 Indian Penal Code .
Section 186 Indian Penal Code read as under :
Regarding the offence u/s 186 Indian Penal Code, it says that; 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.
18. Prosecution has not been able to prove that PW Ghanshyam was on duty at the date and time of incident as no entry or departure register has been brought on record and only in complaint U/S 195 Cr.P.C. it is mentioned that Ghanshyam and Ali Hasan told that they received complaint on 18.08.1998 and reached at house no.2401/1 Shadipur. In the complaint it is only mentioned that they were under the supervision of officer who made complaint U/S 195 Cr.P.C. but no where it is mentioned that they were on duty at time of incident. PW Ali Hasan has stated that he alongwith Ghanshyam and Ramnath went to Shadi Khampur area but he himself went to Shiv Chowk which shows no particular duty was assigned to them to discharge. The failure of prosecution to prove either of above has made it difficult to believe that said persons were discharging their duties. Thus offence U/S 186 Indian Penal Code is not made out .
19. Secondly, I come to the offence u/s 332 Indian Penal Code.
Section 332 Indian Penal Code read as under : Regarding the offence u/s 332 Indian Penal Code, it says that; Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty-Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 6 of 8 -:7:- as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that 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 three years, or with fine, or with both.
20. Thirdly, I come to the offence u/s 353 Indian Penal Code.
Section 353 Indian Penal Code read as under : Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to 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.
21. For all the offences U/S 332 and 353 Indian Penal Code, it is important to make out that hurt U/S 332 and assault and criminal force U/S 353 was to deter public servant from discharge of his public duty .
22. Taking into consideration the MLC, if it is believed the victim Ghanshyam got injured but prosecution has not been able to prove that it was accused who caused injury to Ghanshyam. Although it is believed hurt was caused it cannot be said that it was accused who caused injury to him.
23. PW1 Ghanshyam stated on 18.08.1998 he alongwith Ali Hasan and Ram Nath went to House No.2401/1 Shadipur. When they started repairing work 10-12 persons assembled and started beating them. He stated he cannot identify those persons. In his cross State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 7 of 8 -:8:- examination by Ld.APP he denied the suggestion that accused Anoop gave beatings to him. In his cross examination by accused he stated 10-12 persons beaten them and he was with Ramnath and Ali Hasan. While PW Ali Hasan stated he alongwith Ghanshyam and Ramnath went to Shadipur area but in the meanwhile he went to Shiv chowk area. The statement of Ali Hasan and Ghanshyam is contradictory as Ghanshyam stated Ali Hasan was with him at the time of incident while Ali Hasan stated he has gone to Shiv chowk area at the time of incident. In his cross examination by Ld.APP he denied the suggestion that Anoop Singh gave beatings to Ghanshyam.
24. The only witness who have supported the case of prosecution is PW Ramnath but in absence of corroboration from other material witnesses he alone could not prove the case of prosecution.
25. Although it is believed hurt was caused , it cannot be said that it was the accused who caused him hurt as not a single witness has come on record to support the case of prosecution. Beside this it was a public place but not a single public witness has been found to be credit worthy to include as witness.
26. Hence the offence Under Section 332 and 353 Indian Penal Code, are not made out against the accused.
27. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances and the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the Accused Anoop Singh is acquitted from the offence U/S 186/332/353 of Indian Penal Code.
Announced in the Open Court ( Purshotam Pathak) today on 26th September, 2012 MM-07, Central, Delhi State Vs Anoop Singh Page No. 8 of 8