Delhi District Court
State vs . Bablu And Ors. on 11 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT:
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (Spl. Acts):
CENTRAL: TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
State Vs. Bablu and Ors.
U/s 186/353/427/34 IPC
FIR No.383/2007
P.S : I.P. Estate
CC No.293015/2016
JUDGMENT
(a)Date of commission of offence : 20.07.2007
(b)Name & address of the accused : 1) Bablu @ Raf S/o Salim R/o H-2 Block, H. No. 84, Jahangirpuri, Delhi.
2) Imran S/o Nanua Aziz R/o H-2 Block, H. No. 172, Jahangirpuri, Delhi.
3) Nuru @ Kallan
R/o H-2 Block,
H. No. 141, Jahangirpuri,
Delhi.
4) Rashid
S/o Mohd. Nizam
R/o H-2 Block,
H. No.219, Jahangirpuri,
Delhi.
(c)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(d)Final order : Convicted U/s 186/427/34
IPC
(e)Date of such order : 11.09.2019
Date of Institution : 30.04.2010
Arguments heard/order reserved : 26.08.2019
Date of Judgment : 11.09.2019
State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 1 of 22
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:-
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 20.07.2007 at about 7:30 am, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed and assaulted the doctors and other staff on duty at casualty of LNJP hospital who are public servants and also damaged the defibrillator machine which is a public property.
2. Charge sheet was filed on 30.04.2010, the accused persons were summoned and after hearing arguments charge under section 186/353/427/34 IPC were framed against all accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined witnesses PW-1 S. D. Sharma, PW-2 Mini Mathew, PW-3 Dr. Pankaj Saran, PW4 Dr. S. N. Basna, PW-5 Sawan Kumar, PW- 6 Sanjeev Kumar, PW-7 HC Yashvir Singh, PW-8 ASI Radakrishan, PW-9 Dr. Asheem Gupta and PW-10 retired ASI Dharamsingh.
4. PW-1 Dr. S. D. Sharma proved his complaint as Ex.
PW1/A, he stated that on 20.07.2007 why he has working chief CMO in Lok Nayak Hospital and at about 7:25 AM, Dr. S. N. Basna who was working as CMO under his supervision informed over telephone that relative of patient Zahir, who State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 2 of 22 was referred from BJRM hospital alleged history of road traffic accident are creating ruckus in the causality and had broken one defibrillator. He stated that Dr. S. N. Basna gave written complaint to Additional MS which was forwarded to SHO IP Estate and the medical superintendent. During cross examination, he admitted that Dr. S. N. Basna had not written the complaint Ex. PW1/A and ruckus was not created in his presence. However, he stated that he can identify the writing and signature of Dr. S. N. Basna as he had worked with him.
5. PW-2 Ms. Sini Mathew stated that on 20.07.2007 her duty hours as staff nurse at LNJP hospital were from 8:30 pm to 7:30 am. She stated that on that day while she was no dutyone patient namely Zahir was referred from BJRM hospital with MLC No. 27339 was brought the causality and was attended by Dr. Mukesh and Dr. Pankaj who declared the patient as brought dead. She further stated that the relative of the accompanying the patient argued the doctor on duty and damaged the defibrillator machine. She stated that she can not identify the said relative due to lapse of time but admitted the IO recorded her statement. During cross examination by Ld. APP, she denied the suggestion that she is deliberately not identifying the accused. She also denied the suggestion that accused persons gave beating to her. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused she was not medically examined on that day.
State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 3 of 22
6. PW-3 Dr. Pankaj Sharan stated that on 20.07.2007, he was working as Junior Resident on night duty in causality at LNJP hospital. He further stated that one patient Jaivir brought to the causality being referred from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital who was attended by him and Dr. Mukesh Meena but was declared brought dead. He stated that the relative accompanying the patient started arguing with them and also assaulted them and damaged the defibrillator machine. He further stated that duty constable was called alongwith security staff, relative were controlled. He also stated then CMO S. N. Basna came and gave written complaint to then CCMO. He stated that he cannot identify the relative due to lapse of time. On cross examination by Ld. APP he stated he cannot say whether the patient name was Zaheer but stated the same after seeing the alleged. He admitted that he is not recollecting the facts properly due to lapse of time. However, he denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identifying the accused as he has been won over by them. During cross examination by Ld. counsel for accused, he stated that defibrillator machine was not seized in his presence.
7. PW-4 S. N. Basna stated that he was on duty between 9:00 pm to 9:00 am on 20.07.2007 as CMO and at about 7:25 am, he was informed that some persons were fighting in the causality and he immediately rushed to causality and saw one patient Zahir lying on the trolley and who was declared brought dead and glass of one gate was broken and apart from one defibrillator machine, life saving State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 4 of 22 instrument was also broken and lying on the floor. He stated he made a call 100 number and informed the incident to police chowki and Dr. S. D. Sharma, CCMO stated he gave written complaint to Additional M.S which is Ex. PW1/A. He stated that the defibrillator machine was seized in his presence by the police which is Ex. PW4/A and also stated about the arrest of accused in his presence which is Ex. PW4/ B to Ex. PW4/E and their personal search memo Ex. PW4/F to Ex. PW4/I. He identified the accused persons who are present in the court and identity of accused Nuru @ Nuruddin was not disputed by the counsel for accused. The identity of defibrillator machine was also not disputed by the counsel for accused. During cross examination, he admitted that no fight occurred in his presence, however, he stated that when he reached the ward the persons were abusing. He also admitted that the names of accused persons are not mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW1/A. He stated his statement was recorded in the hospital and name of accused persons came to his knowledge when police officials informed the same. He admitted that he cannot identify the accused persons by their names but stated he can identifying the accused persons by their faces. He denied the suggestion that accused present in the court were not involved for breaking the machine or fighting with the hospital staff and they were falsely implicated. He denied the suggestion no such incident occurred and he was not present in the hospital at the time of incident.
8. PW-5 Sawan Kumar stated that he was working as State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 5 of 22 nursing orderly in the causality. He further stated that on that day his duty hours were from 7.00 am to 2.00 pm and stated that one patient, Zahir was brought in the casualty who was referred by BJRM and the said patient Zahir was brought dead in the casualty and their relatives who came alongwith the patient created ruckus in the casualty and they started misbehaved with the nurses, staff members and the doctors working in the casualty. He further stated that they were shouting and pushing the staff members and they had also broken one defibrillator, life saving device, placed in the casualty. One glass of one door was also broken by them. He further stated that CMO Dr. Basna was informed about the incident who came immediately in the ward and he called the police from the nearest PP. He further stated that on that day, three accused persons who had done the above said incident are present in the court and he can identify accused Nuru @ Noruddin if shown to him and he can also identify the machine defibrillator if shown to him. Ld. Counsel that there was no dispute with regard to identify of the machine, however, the same was not broken by the accused persons. During cross examination, he came to know about the names of the accused persons when they were talking to each other in the ward and he can identify the accused by their names. He further stated that his statement was recorded in the hospital and he had not informed the police about the names of the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he was identified the accused persons by their names at the instance of the police and on the information of the police. He further State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 6 of 22 stated that no MLC of the injured was done in his presence. He further stated that the seizure memo of the machine was prepared in his presence. However, he had not signed the same. He further stated that he did not knew the number of the machine. He further stated that police officials remained in the ward for around 1.30 to 2.00 hours. He denied the suggestion that deceased patient's name was not Zahir. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons never misbehaved with the staff members or doctors. He further denied the suggestion that no machine was broken by them. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of incident, and that is why his signatures were not obtained on the seizure memo and other documents.
9. PW-9: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar stated that he had appeared with the MLC register. He further stated that on 07.08.2008, he was working in the record department of LNJP Hospital, New Delhi and on the basis of the MLC, it appears that Dr. Rashmi Bhardwaj (JR) had examined one injured namely Manju and during the course of examination, she had prepared MLC no. 093232 already Ex. PW3/A and he further stated that signature of Dr. Rashmi Bhardwaj was at point X and her opinion is mentioned at point Y and he can identify the signature and handwriting of the Dr. Rashmi Bhardwaj as he had seen her writing and signing the documents in the course of his duty as record clerk of the hospital. During cross examination, he stated that said MLC was not prepared in his presence and he had State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 7 of 22 only deposed what appeared to him on the basis of MLC. He denied the suggestion that he had never seen her handwriting or signature during the course of his duties.
10. PW-7 HC Yashvir Singh stated that on 20.07.2007, he was posted as duty constable at LNJP hospital, Delhi and on that , one referral MLC was received regarding the victim of an accident to whom doctor has declared him brought dead and to this, the relatives of the deceased started fighting with the doctors and also broken the machinery kept in the causality room and they were four in numbers and he can identify the all the four persons. He further stated that three of them are present in the court and correctly identified by him and the four is not present in the court. However, it was submitted by the counsel that there was no disputed about their identity. He further stated that Dr. Basna was present on that day when the incident occurred. During cross examination, he stated that his duty hours from 8:00 am to 8:00 am ( 24 hours). He further stated that he did not remember whether any CCTV camera was installed or not. He further stated that he did not make a call hundred number. He further stated that police arrived at the spot in about 5-7 minutes and his statement was recorded in the hospital itself. He further stated that police remained at the spot for about 4 hours. He further stated that several persons were present in the causality at that time and he cannot tell the name of the persons. He further stated that he had never informed the name of the accused persons to the IO. He denied the State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 8 of 22 suggestion that accused persons never misbehave with the doctors or they had never broken the government property kept in the hospital.
11. PW-8 ASI Radakrishan stated that on 20.07.2007, he posted as DO at PS IP Estate and he further stated that on that day his duty hours from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. He stated that on that day one rukka was brought by Ct. Sunder lal sent by ASI Dharam Singh and on the basis of said rukka he registered the present FIR which is Ex. PW8/A. He further stated that also made endorsement in the rukka Ex. PW8/B and after registration of FIR, original rukka and copy of FIR was handed over to Ct. Sunder lal. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the said FIR was antedated and antetime. He denied the suggestion that the he was not on duty at the time of registration of FIR.
12. PW-9 Dr. Asheem Gupta, stated that he had appeared on behalf of Dr. Manju Mehra, who was the then MOIC, Equipment Store. He stated that she had left the department and he had no personal knowledge about her whereabouts and being the in-charge of equipment store. He further stated that he had brought the ownership documents which reflects the installation and demonstration of defibrillator machine in the hospital and stated that there were total three machines were procured by the hospital and one of them was alleged to have been broken by the relatives of the patient and proved the State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 9 of 22 document is Ex. PW9/A bears his signatures at point A. He further stated that the said machines were provided to them by M/s Hamara Enterprise. He further proved the case property which has been brought by the MHC( M) i.e. defibrillator machine Ex. P-1, the broken defibrillator machine (case property) shown to the him and witness is specifically asked about the identification, to which witness had pointed out the make and model number of the machine and after seeing the machine, he has also identified the same as the one which was installed in the hospital. During cross examination, he further stated that documents Ex. PW9/A was not handed over to the police during investigation. He further stated that at the time of incident, he was not the in-charge of equipment store. He further stated that at that time, he was working as Specialist Anesthesia. He further stated that he had worked with Dr. Manju Mehra. He admitted that he was not present when the seizure memo Ex. PW4/A was prepared. He admitted that the case property was produced in unsealed condition. He admitted that as per seizure memo, the case property was not sealed at the time of preparation of seizure memo. He admitted that serial number of machine was not mentioned in the seizure memo as well as in the documents filed by him. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P-1, that is the case property was not the same machine which was seized by seizure memo Ex. PW4/A. He admitted that machine in question was not purchased in his presence. He voluntarily stated that he had verified the particular from the office record after seeing the original record. He denied State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 10 of 22 the suggestion that the broken case property had been planted upon the accused persons to implicate in the present case.
13. PW-10 retired ASI Dharamsingh stated on 20.07.2007, he was posted as ASI at PP LNJP hospital of PS IP Estates and he further stated that on that day, DD No. 5PP was received to him regarding fight with the doctor and staff in the causality of LNJP hospital. He further stated he accordingly, went to the causality ward where he met HC Yashvir Singh and Ct. Sunderpal who were present there already. He further stated that accused persons were already apprehended by the said two police officers. He further stated that he had enquired about the incident from the police officers and the doctors and the custody of the accused persons were handed over to him. He further stated that Dr. S.D. Sharma handed over him the detailed complaint narrating the whole incident. He further stated that he made endorsement and prepared the rukka Ex. PW10/A bearing his signatures at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Sunderpal for registration of FIR. He further stated that he accordingly went to the PS, got the FIR registered came back to the spot where he had handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka. He had prepared the site plan Ex. PW10/B bearing his signature at point A. He further stated that he had also seized the broken defibrillator vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A bearing his signature at point B. he further stated that all the four accused persons were arrested vide separate arrest memo State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 11 of 22 which already Ex. PW4/B, PW4/C, PW4/D and PW4/ E all bearing his signature at point B. He further stated that considering the nature of offence as bailable, all of them were released on bail. He further stated that during the course of investigation he also collected the attendance sheet of doctors who are present in the hospital which is Ex. PW6/B(OSR). He proved the duty roaster of attending doctors were also sought vide letter Ex. PW10/C bearing his signature at point A and in accordance with the same, the duty roaster of the doctors were provided the same are running into three pages and Ex. PW10/D (colly). He further stated that he had also obtained the permission to prosecute under section 195 Cr.PC. And the same is Ex. PW10/E and he can identify the case property if shown to him. He further proved the case property i.e. defibrillator is already Ex. P-1 in the testimony of PW9. He further stated that he had also recorded the statement of cited witnesses prepared the chargesheet and filed before the court. He further stated that all the accused persons are present in the court today and identified the same. During cross examination, he stated that he had received the information of incident at about 7:15 am and no incident in the hospital took place in his presence. He further stated that in the Ex. PW1/A i.e. complaint was not written in his presence. He further stated that rukka was taken to the PS by the Ct. Sunderpal at about 9:45-10 am and he returned back to the spot at around 10:30- 10:40 am and all the writing work which are mainly the exhibits were prepared in the causality of the hospital. He further stated that he did State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 12 of 22 not recall how many statement were recorded in the hospital by him. He denied the suggestion that no such incident ever took place in the hospital rather the accused persons were implicated at the instance of the doctors. He further denied the suggestion that the broken case property was imposed upon the accused persons with a view to falsely implicated the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that no incident as alleged had ever taken place with the doctors.
14. After the completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 20.08.2019 wherein they stated that have been falsely implicated and they were asked to remain present in the hospital by the police.
15. No defence evidence was heard. Final arguments were heard. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the prosecution witness have supported the case of prosecution and PW-4 and PW5 have correctly identified the accused persons as a preparators of the crime committed. He further argued that there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused persons.
16. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegation. He pointed out that PW2 and PW3 have not identified the accused persons and prays for acquittal of the accused persons.
State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 13 of 2217. The accused persons are charged with causing obstruction and assaulting the public servants in performing their duty apart from causing damage to the public property which is punishable under Section 186/353/427/34 IPC.
18. Section 186 provides: 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'.
19. Section 353 IPC provides: 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 State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 14 of 22 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'.
20. Section 427 IPC provides: Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees:-
'Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of 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'.
21. Section 34 IPC provides: Act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:-
'When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone'.
22. Whether the doctors and other staff on duty at the time of incident are public servants: Section 21 IPC defines that who are to be treated as public servant. Clause twelfth provides that:
Every person-
(a) in the service or pay of the
Government or remunerated by fees or
State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 15 of 22
commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government;
(b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.
23. As per Ex. PW10/C, IO has requested to MS, LNJP hospital to provide the duty roaster of attendance of doctor at casualty on the intervening night of 19-20.07.2007. The said duty roaster is Ex. PW10/D which is dated 13.07.2007 in which the names of doctors on duty on 19.07.2007 and 20.07.2007 were highlighted. It is having names of Dr. S. N. Basna, Dr. Pankaj Sharan, Dr. Mukesh Kumar Meena apart from two intern doctors. As per Ex. PW6/A, attendance register for the month of July 2007, Dr. S. N. Basna and as per Ex. PW6/B, DR. Pankaj Sharan, Dr. Manoj Kumar Mishra and Dr. Mukesh Kumar Meena were the doctors on duty. Moreover, Complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C is also filed which is Ex. PW10/E signed by Medical Superintendent mentions in details not only the names of the doctors and other supporting staff who were on duty on 20.07.2007 but also mentions about the incident in which the doctors and other staff members were assaulted and obstructed in discharging their duty as public servant apart from causing damage to the government property.
24. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 are the doctor and other State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 16 of 22 supporting staff on duty working in casualty at the time of incident. In view of complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C alongwith the duty roaster and attendance register, I am satisfied that PW2, PW3 and PW5 are public servants as defined under Section 21 IPC. Admittedly, LNJP hospital is a Government hospital receiving funds for its day to day working from Government of NCT of Delhi and salary and allowance of the doctors and staff working in LNJP hospital is also drawn from the budget of Government of NCT of Delhi being in service of Government and receiving renumeration for performing their duties as assigned by the Government.
25. Whether the accused persons voluntarily obstructed the public servants and prevented them from discharging their duty: PW-1 has proved his complaint which mentions that On Duty doctors were assaulted and public property was damaged by the accused persons. Even though PW2 and PW3 have not identified the accused persons as the persons who attacked them but they also stated that while they were on duty the relatives accompanying the patient Zahir, who was declared brought dead have started arguing with them and damaged the defibrillator machine. PW-4 and PW5 have also corroborated the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 with respect to the occurrence of the incident. PW-4 also stated that he gave complaint to the Additional MS regarding the incident. PW5 also identifying the accused persons as involved in the incident. He had correctly pointed out each State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 17 of 22 accused by their names. He had also stated that while he was on duty accused persons misbehaved with the nurses, staff members and doctors working in the casualty. Similarly, PW4 identified the accused persons as the one who were arrested by the police for creating ruckus in the causality. He proved their arrest in his presence. He also identified the accused persons. Even during cross examination, he had stated that even though he is not recalling the names of the accused persons but he is identifying them by their faces. However, PW2 and PW3 who both are stated to be present at the time of incident have failed to identify the accused persons on the ground that due to lapse of time, they are not been able to identify them. PW-3 in his cross-examination by Ld. APP admitted that he is unable to recollect the facts properly due to lapse of time even though denying the suggestion that he has been won by accused persons. At this point, it is to be noted that the incident occurred in July, 2007 and testimony of PW2 and PW3 was recorded on 15.03.2019 i.e. after the gap of almost 12 years and it is not expected from PW2 and PW3 to remember the names or facial features of the accused persons as they had seen the accused for the first and last time at the time of incident and they were previously not known to PW2 and PW3 as the level of memory of each individual is different. It is possible that a person remembers very old facts and at the same time another person does not remember even very recent facts. The accused persons have not denied their presence in the hospital on the date of incident and claimed that they were State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 18 of 22 in the hospital alongwith 20 other persons who were asked by the police to remain in the hospital. They also claimed that they allowed to go after their signatures were obtained. The accused have not denied that they had accompanied the deceased Zahir who was brought to LNJP hospital from BJRM hospital with alleged history of Road Traffic Accident (RTA). No suggestion has been put to the witnesses that accused persons were not arrested from the spot which reconfirms their presence. PW-2 and PW3 have stated that the relatives accompanying the patient started arguing with them and also damaged the defibrillator machine. PW5 has also reiterated that relative created ruckus in the casualty and misbehaved with doctors, nurses and other staff members working the casualty. He had stated that the said relatives were shouting and pushing the staff members and also broken one defibrillator machine. No suggestion has been put to the witnesses that PW2, PW3 and PW5 were not on duty on 20.07.2007 in the casualty at the time of incident.
26. By misbehaving with the staff and doctors, shouting and pushing the staff members and also by damaging the property of the hospital including a defibrillator machine, the accused have voluntarily obstructed the public servants from discharging their public duty as authorized by law. There are sufficient indication of voluntarily obstruction as force has been used against the doctors and staff on duty by the accused persons while doctors and other staff were discharging their public duty being employees of LNJP State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 19 of 22 hospital which is Government Hospital. PW2, PW3 and PW5 are not medically examined to determine whether they have suffered any bodily injury in the incident but PW5 have stated that the accused persons were shouting and pushing the staff members which points out that the hospital staff on duty were obstructed with the intention to prevent them from discharging their duty as public servant. The damaged to defibrillator machine also point towards the intention of accused persons in deterring the doctors and other staff on duty in discharging their public duty. The offences were committed by the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention of causing obstruction to the doctors and other staff at the casualty of LNJP Hospital as PW-5 has categorically stated that all the accused persons attacked the doctors and other staff and caused damaged to defibrillator machine. The presence of accused persons at the spot is natural as they were accompanying the deceased Zahir who was brought to the casualty of LNJP hospital for treatment from BJRM hospital. In the absence of any proof of bodily injury upon any of the doctors/staff present in the casualty, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations under section 353/34 IPC. However, it has come on record that accused persons with common intention have voluntarily obstructed the public servants.
27. The defibrillator machine is stated to be damaged by the act of accused persons. PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 have all stated that the machine of the hospital was damaged. PW9 have proved the existence of machine in State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 20 of 22 question vide Ex. PW9/A. The seizure memo of defibrillator machine is also proved by PW4 vide Ex. PW4/A. The letter dated 02.06.2008 issued by Smt. Manju Mehra of the hospital who has stated to have left the department has given the detail of purchase of machine in question which was valued at Rs. 1,17,962/- at the time of purchase. By damaging the machine valued at more than Rs. 50/-, the accused persons have not only caused to financial loss to the hospital but also resulted into the denial of use of said machine for treatment of the patients as defibrillator machine is a life saving device.
28. In view of above discussions and evidence on record, I am satisfied that prosecution has successfully proved the allegations against accused persons that in furtherance of their common intention accused Bablu @ Rafi, Imran, Nuru @ Kallan and Rashid have caused voluntarily obstruction to the public servants in discharging of public duty and also caused damage by mischief to the public property.
29. Accordingly, accused persons namely Bablu @ Rafi, Imran, Nuru @ Kallan and Rashid are convicted for offence U/s186/427/34 IPC.
30. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 21 of 22
31. Copy of the judgment be also uploaded with digital signature. Digitally signed PAWAN by PAWAN SINGH SINGH RAJAWAT Date: 2019.09.11 Announced in open Court on 11th September, 2019 RAJAWAT 16:35:55 +0530 (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT) ACMM (Special Acts):CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI State Vs. Bablu & Anr. CC No. 293015/16 22 of 22