Delhi District Court
State vs Suresh & Ors. on 29 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS RUCHIKA SINGLA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -04, ROOM NO. 212
DWARKA, DELHI
STATE versus Suresh & Ors.
FIR No. 56/07
PS: Kapashera
U/s-186/332/353/341/427/506/34 IPC
1. Serial No. of the case : 02405R6308952004
2. Date of commission of offence : 13.02.2007
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Rohit Ranjan
4. Name of the accused, and his : 1. Suresh, s/o Sh. Mangtu Ram,
parentage and residence r/o 469, Kapashera, Delhi.
2. Madhi @ Jai Prakash, s/o Sh. Nand Roop
r/o H. No. 508, Kapashera, Delhi.
5. Date of Reserving Judgment : 06.01.2015
6. Date when judgment was : 29.01.2015
pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : U/s-186/332/353/341/427/506/34 IPC
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
9. Final Order : Conviction
10. Date of Order : 29.01.2015
-:: JUDGMENT ::-
Brief statement of reasons for the decision of the case
1. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution is that on 13.02.2007 at about 2.30 pm at Pawan Service Station, Surya Vihar, Kapashera, the accused Suresh and Madhi @ Jai Prakash along with one Manoj had wrongfully restrained the complainant Rohit and his other associates and assaulted them while they were performing their duty as public servant, being officials of BSES RPL (as provided under the Electricity Act) and voluntarily caused simple hurt to them. When the above said officials tried to escape by running towards vehicle bearing no. DL 3CW-6200 and DL 9CA-9584, accused persons restrained them and caused damage to the said vehicles and committed criminal intimidation to above said officials. Hence, the accused persons are facing the present trial u/s FIR no. 56/07 State Vs. Suresh PS: Kapashera Page 1 of 7 186/332/353/341/427/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC).
2. The FIR was registered. Thereafter, the investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed under Section 186/332/353/341/427/506/34 IPC on 11.01.2008. Cognizance was taken against the accused and provisions of Section 207 CrPC were complied with after appearance of the accused persons. After hearing arguments, a Charge for the offences under Sections 186/332/353/341/427/506 IPC read with Section 34, IPC was framed on 11.01.2008 against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was put up for prosecution evidence.
3. Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh. Rajan Gurjar, PW2 Sh. Manoj Kumar, PW3 Sh. Bhagwan, PW4 Sh. Ashish Saini and PW11 Sh. Pavan Pratihast are the eye witnesses and the aggrieved persons. PW5 HC Gajraj got the FIR registered. PW6 HC Subhash Chander aided the IO in the investigation of the present case. PW7 Dr. Mukul Mangla who deposed on behalf of Dr. Vasudev (he is also examined as PW8 to depose on behalf of Dr. Daya Krishnan) proved the MLCs of the injured. PW9 Sh. V. P. Yadav, Divisional Chief, BSES proved the complaint Ex.PW9/A. PW10 W/SI Dominica Purti is the DO who registered the FIR. PW12 Rohit Ranjan is the complainant. PW13 (who is inadvertently mentioned as PW12 in his examination) SI Anand Prakash is the IO.
4. Thereafter, PE was closed. Statement of both accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded on 03.03.2013 whereby they wished to lead DE. In defence evidence, accused examined only one witness i.e. one Sh. Ramesh Chand as DW1. Thereafter DE was closed. Thereafter final arguments were heard and matter was put up for orders.
5. In the present matter, the accused persons have been charged for the offence u/s 186/332/353/351/427/506/34 IPC. I shall discuss one by one whether each of the offences are made out against the accused persons or not. However, before commencing with the discussion, it is impertinent to note that the offences u/s 186/332 and 353 IPC pertain to offences against public servants. In the present matter the aggrieved persons are the officials of BSES, RPL which is a private company. However, Ld. APP has argued that at the time of incident they had gone for inspection of the premises of the accused persons in furtherance of the power vested upon them u/s 126 of Electricity Act 2003. As per Section 169 of the Electricity Act, any assessing officer u/s 126 of the Act shall be deemed to be FIR no. 56/07 State Vs. Suresh PS: Kapashera Page 2 of 7 a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 IPC. Hence, it is stated that by virtue of all above mentioned provisions, the aggrieved persons were acting as public servants and hence, the offences are applicable upon the accused persons. The Court is in agreement with the interpretation as suggested by the Ld. APP.
6. In the light of the same, the Court shall first examine whether prosecution has proved that the accused persons have committed the offence u/s 186 IPC which is reproduced as under:
"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."
7. To make out the said offence, the prosecution must prove that the accused persons voluntarily obstructed the public servants in discharge of their public functions. It has already been discussed that aggrieved persons namely complainant Rohit Ranjan and his colleagues are public servants within the ambit of Electricity Act, 2003. However, it must also be proved that while they were discharging such function as public servants, they were obstructed by the accused persons. To prove the same, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Rajan Gurjar, PW-2 Manoj Kumar, PW-3 Sri Bhagwan, PW-4 Ashish Saini, PW-11 Pawan Pratihast and PW-12 Rohit Ranjan. It is submitted by Ld. APP that all these witnesses have deposed in corroboration with each other that on 13.02.2007, they received an information about electricity theft at the spot. They went to the spot along with a police official namely PW-6 HC Subhash and found that the electricity was being stolen by directly connecting electricity cable from an electricity pole. Thereafter, both the accused persons man-handled them and gave them beatings. They called some more persons who broke the glass of their vehicle. It is submitted by the Ld. APP that the accused persons were correctly identified by the witnesses in the Court and they were arrested at the instance of the said witnesses. Further, they were duly cross- examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused but nothing contrary could be brought out. They remained firm on their testimonies. Hence, the prosecution has proved its case.
8. On the other hand, counsel for the accused person has opposed the same and has argued that the offence is not proved against the accused persons. It is stated that PW-2 Manoj and PW-11 Pawan were FIR no. 56/07 State Vs. Suresh PS: Kapashera Page 3 of 7 declared hostile by Ld. APP, as they had resiled from their previous statements. Further PW-11 Pawan Pratihast and PW-12 Rohit Ranjan could not identify accused persons in the Court. Hence, they do not support the prosecution case and a benefit of doubt should be given to the accused persons. Further, it is stated that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the said witnesses. Actually, they came at the spot and when they were asked to show their I-cards, they could not show the same and fled away from the spot. Thereafter, they implicated the accused persons in the present case. This fact has been proved by the testimony of DW-1 Ramesh Chand.
9. I have gone through the entire record. As pointed out by Ld. APP, PW-1 Rajan, PW-3 Sri Bhagwan, PW-4 Ashish Saini and PW-6 HC Subhash has deposed in corroboration with each other regarding the facts as mentioned above. PW-12 Rohit Ranjan also deposed similarly, however, he could not identify the accused persons due to lapse of time. PW-2 Manoj and PW-11 Pawan were admittedly cross-examined by Ld. APP, as they had resiled from their previous statements. However, in his cross- examination, PW-2 Manoj admitted the entire story which was put to him by Ld. APP by confronting him with his statement under Section 161, CrPC. He admitted that some quarrel had taken place at the spot with PW3 Shri Bhagwan and PW1 Rajan Gujar. He further admitted that both the accused persons were amongst those persons who had quarreled with PW3 Shri Bhagwan and PW1 Rajan Gujar. Though he did not explicitly depose in corroboration with the other witnesses, however, he did depose regarding the occurrence of the quarrel and the presence of the accused persons at the spot.
10. Now only PW-11 Pawan can be stated to have resilied from his earlier statement. However, even if that is so, there are as many as 6 witnesses who have deposed in line with the prosecution case and there are 5 witnesses who have correctly identified the accused persons as the offenders. PW12 Rohit Ranjan stated in his testimony that he could not identify the accused persons due to lapse of time. However, he did not state that the accused persons were not the perpetrators of the crime. The accused has raised defence that these persons implicated them falsely when they were asked to show their I- cards and could not show the same. However, perusal of the record shows that this defence was not raised by the accused persons since the beginning. The prosecution evidence commenced in the year 2009 and at that time, suggestions were put to PW-1 and PW-3 by the accused persons that the witnesses were beaten by the public because they were misbehaving with the ladies of the house. A suggestion was given to PW12 Rohit Ranjan that the quarrel had taken place due to the reason that it FIR no. 56/07 State Vs. Suresh PS: Kapashera Page 4 of 7 was an unauthorized raid by them. Hence, there are three versions of the defence regarding the origin of the quarrel. Hence, the testimony of DW1 Ramesh Chand is not worthy to be relied upon. In contrast to the same, as earlier discussed, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are corroborative with each other. Hence, in the opinion of this court, the prosecution has proved that when the BSES RPL officials had gone to conduct an inspection raid, which they are empowered to do under Section 126, Electricity Act, the accused persons attacked them and obstructed them in the discharge of their duties. An official complaint was filed by PW9 V.P. Yadav, who was the Manager (Enforcement) of BSES at that time. Same is proved as Ex.PW9/A. In view of the same, the Court is satisfied that the offence u/s 186/34 IPC is made out against the accused persons.
11. The accused persons have then been charged for the offence punishable u/s 332 IPC which provides as under:
"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 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."
12. To make out the said offence, in addition to proving of the offence u/s 186 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to a public servant. In this regard the prosecution has relied upon the statement of PW-7 and 8 Dr. Mukul Mangla who proved MLCs of PW-12, PW-3 and PW-7 as Ex. PW-7/A, Ex. PW-7/B and Ex. PW-8/A. As per the said MLCs the aforementioned persons have received simple injuries by a blunt instrument. It has already been mentioned earlier that the prosecution witnesses proved by way of their testimonies that they were beaten by the accused persons. Hence, it is proved that these injuries were caused to them by the accused persons. Hence, this ingredient is also fulfilled and the prosecution has proved the commission of the offence u/s 332/34 IPC by the accused persons.
13. Then the accused persons have been charged for the offence u/s 353 IPC which is as under:
FIR no. 56/07State Vs. Suresh PS: Kapashera Page 5 of 7 "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 to 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."
14. Hence, to make out the above mentioned offence, the prosecution must prove that the accused persons:
a) assaulted or used criminal force;
b) against a public servant while he was executing his duty; and
c) such an act was done with the intention to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty.
15. In view of the aforementioned discussion this offence is also made out against the accused persons.
16. Then, the accused have been charged for the offence u/s 341 IPC which provides for punishment for wrongful restraint. In view of the evidence led by the prosecution, in the opinion of the Court this offence as such is not made out as nothing has come on record that said witnesses were stopped in proceeding in any directions. As per the case of prosecution the accused persons came to them and attacked them. It is not the case that the PWs tried to escape from the spot but were stopped by the accused persons. Hence, this offence is not made out. Similarly offence u/s 506 IPC is also not made out as there is nothing on record to suggest that accused persons made any kind of threat to the said persons.
17. Lastly, the accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable u/s 427 IPC which provides for punishment for mischief causing damage to the amount of Rs. 50/- or more. The witnesses have categorically stated that the accused persons along with some other unknown persons broke the glass of their vehicle and caused damage to it. The photographs of the vehicle are on record which are Ex. PW-12/B-1 to Ex. PW-12/B-5. Same shows that the window of the vehicle i.e. Maruti Van have been broken. Hence, naturally, more than Rs. 50/- damage was caused to the said vehicle. Hence, this FIR no. 56/07 State Vs. Suresh PS: Kapashera Page 6 of 7 offence is also made out against the accused persons.
18. In view of aforesaid discussion the accused persons stands convicted for the offences under Section186/332/353/427/34 IPC List the matter for arguments on quantum of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RUCHIKA SINGLA)
COURT ON 29.01.2015 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
FIR no. 56/07
State Vs. Suresh
PS: Kapashera Page 7 of 7