Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Harish Lakra on 6 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK KUMAR II, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE 06 DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 825/15.
PS. DWARKA NORTH.
U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC
STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA
(2) ANIL @ NAVEEN
JUDGEMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 422136/16
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 04/05/2016
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 08/10/2015
D. NAME OF THE : Ct. Rajeev Kumar, No.
COMPLAINANT 3055/SW, PS. Dwarka North
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : 1. Harish Lakra S/o Sh.Niwasan Lakra, R/o House No. B37, Swarn Park, Mundka, New Delhi.
2. Anil @ Naveen S/o Sh.
Prithvi Singh, R/o House No. D26, Swarna Park, Mundka, New Delhi.
F. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC.
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty. H. FINAL ORDER : Conviction. FIR NO. 825/15. PS. DWARKA NORTH. U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA & Anr No. 422136/16 Page No. 1/15 I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 06/03/2020. Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as unfolded from the charge sheet are that on 08.10.2015 at about 05:30 PM near police picket, ganda nala (drain) within the jurisdiction of PS Dwarka North, both the accused persons namely Harish Lakra and Anil @ Naveen in furtherance of their common intention had voluntarily obstructed the complainant herein i.e. Ct. Rajeev Kumar, who is a public servant, from discharging his duties. They both had also voluntarily caused simple hurt to him with the intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his lawful duties. It had also been alleged that on the aforesaid date, time and place, both the accused persons had assaulted/ used criminal force to the complainant, who is a public servant, with the intention to prevent or deter him from discharging his lawful duties. On the basis of the complaint of the complainant, the present case FIR U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC was registered at PS Dwarka North. Both the accused persons were arrested at the spot. On conclusion of investigation the present challan under the aforesaid sections was filed against the accused persons namely Harish Lakra and Anil @ Naveen.
2. In compliance of Section 207 Cr. P. C the copy of the FIR NO. 825/15.
PS. DWARKA NORTH.
U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA & Anr No. 422136/16 Page No. 2/15 challan and the documents annexed with the challan were supplied to both the accused persons. Prima facie charge U/s. 186/332/353/34 IPC was made out against both the accused persons namely Harish Lakra and Anil @ Naveen. Accordingly, on 08.09.2016 the charge was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses.
4. Deposition of PW1 HC Rajeev Kumar has been reproduced as follows "on 08.10.2015, I was posted at PS Dwarka North as Constable. On that day, I alongwith ASI Kamal was on picket duty at Ganda Nala/drain, Kakrola Village and my duty hours were from 08:00 am to 08:00 PM. At about 05:30 PM, a tempo was coming from Najafgarh side. The last digits of the registration number of the tempo was 1671. At that time, one car make i10 grand having registration No. DL10CS6331 colour silver came from the Sector - 16B, Dwarka and hit the tempo. Thereafter, we ran near the spot of accident. Two persons who were sitting inside the car came outside and started quarreling and beating the truck driver. I tried to stop the fight. Thereafter, they left FIR NO. 825/15.
PS. DWARKA NORTH.
U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA & Anr No. 422136/16 Page No. 3/15 the truck driver and started quarreling and beating me. Both the persons were in drunken condition. Both the accused persons were present in the court, correctly identified by the witness. Someone made a call at 100 No. IO ASI Banwari Lal alongwith Ct. Sodan came to the spot. I handed over both the accused persons to the IO whose name I came to know later on as Harish Lakra and Anil @ Naveen. My statement was recorded by the IO which is Ex.PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. Site plan was prepared at my instance by the police. My medical examination was got conducted. Accused persons were also medically examined at DDU Hospital by the IO".
5. Cross examination of PW1 is as follows "I alongwith ASI Kamal was at picket duty on the date of incident. I have not left the picket on the day of incident as I was specifically posted at picket duty. I only left the picket when the accident took place at about 10 15 metres away from the picket. I have not attended any complaint on that day. On that day only the present case was registered at the PS near my picket. On that day, accused persons also misbehaved with Devender who was driver of the tempo. A written complaint/statement of the incident was also given by Devender. I have not left the picket for tea on that day. I was near my picket only at about 0500 PM - 06:00 PM. No other complaint FIR NO. 825/15.
PS. DWARKA NORTH.
U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA & Anr No. 422136/16 Page No. 4/15 was received at that time. I do not know the accused persons prior to that incident. I have seen the accused persons only at the time of incident. It is wrong to suggest that no such incident took place or that the accused persons were not involved in the incident or that no accident took place on that day. It is wrong to suggest that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case just on the basis of doubt. It is wrong to suggest that no written complaint have been given by the driver of tempo. It is wrong to suggest that no injury on my person have been caused by the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that no such incident has taken place. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely".
6. Deposition of PW2 Ct. Amar Singh has been reproduced as follows "on 14.10.2015, I was posted at PS Dwarka North. On that day the vehicle bearing No. DL10CS6331 was released on superdari by orders of this Hon'ble Court. Thereafter IO/ASI Banwari Lal released the vehicle on superdari and prepared the panchnama which is Ex.PW2/A bearing my name at point A". This witness was not cross examined despite opportunity being afforded to the accused person.
7. Deposition of PW3 ASI Kamal has been reproduced as follows "on 08.10.2015, I was posted at PS Dwakra North as an ASI. On that day my duty timings were from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM at FIR NO. 825/15.
PS. DWARKA NORTH.
U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA & Anr No. 422136/16 Page No. 5/15 Kakrola Drain Picket. Ct. Rajeev was also posted at the said picket. At about 5:30 PM, 23 persons came from Najafgarh side in a car whose number I do not remember. I do not remember the other details. I am not able to recall other details of the case right now". Ld. APP for the State was permitted to cross examine this witness as he was resiling from his previous statement. Cross examination of PW3 conducted by the Ld. App for the State is as follows "it is correct that on 08.10.2015 at about 5:30 PM a tempo bearing registration no. HR63A1671 came from the Najafgarh side and during that time one i10 car bearing registration no. DL10CS6331 came from the sector16B, Dwarka side and the said car hit the tempo. It is correct that I alongwith Ct. Rajeev ran near the spot and saw that the person sitting in the i10 car started quarreling and beating the truck driver. It is correct to suggest that when we tried to stop them the said two persons stopped beating the truck driver and started beating Ct. Rajeev. It is correct to suggest that ASI Banwari Lal reached the spot and both the accused persons handed over to ASI Banwari Lal. I can identify i10 car if shown to me. Identity of the i10 car is not disputed by Ld. Cousnel for accused persons. My statement was recorded by IO. Both the accused persons have obstructed us in doing our duties and both the accused persons gave beatings to the Ct. Rajeev. At this stage, both the accused Harish Lakra and FIR NO. 825/15.
PS. DWARKA NORTH.
U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA & Anr No. 422136/16 Page No. 6/15 accused Anil @ Naveen are shown to the witness. Witness correctly identified both the accused persons and states that these are the same persons who gave beatings to the accused persons".
8. Cross examination of PW3 is as follows "I did not receive the information with regard to an accident from anywhere. Vol The incident took place in my presence. The distance between the spot and Kakrola Drain picket is about 2025 feet. The distance between the spot and PS Dwarka North is about 500 meters. My statement was recorded at the spot. Statement of the witnesses were not recorded in my presence. IO took both the accused persons alongwith him. I did not received the copy of FIR. I cannot tell where the documents of the entire incident was prepared by the IO. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely".
9. Deposition of PW4 SI Banwari Lal has been reproduced as follows "on 08.10.2015 I was posted at PS Dwarka North as ASI. On that day I was on emergency duty and my duty timings were from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. I received DD No. 50A at about 5:35 PM regarding a quarrel at a drain, Sector16A, Picket. I alongwith Ct. Sodan reached the spot. There I met Ct. Rajeev and ASI Kamal who were on duty at that time at the picket. They produced two accused persons namely Harish Lakra and Anil @ FIR NO. 825/15.
PS. DWARKA NORTH.
U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA & Anr No. 422136/16 Page No. 7/15 Naveen. Ct. Rajeev told me that accused persons were quarreling with one Devender and when he tried to stop them, both of them gave beatings to him. I recorded statement of Ct. Rajeev, prepared the rukka. Rukka is Ex.PW4/A bearing my signature at point A. Ct. Sodan took the accused persons and Ct. Rajeev to DDU hospital for medical examination. Both the accused persons were in drunken condition at that time. Ct. Sodan reached the spot alongwith the accused persons and Ct. Rajeev. Thereafter Ct. Sodan was sent alongwith the rukka to the PS for registration of FIR. Ct. Sodan reached the spot after some time and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir. Notice u/s 41A CrPC was given to both the accused persons. The car of the accused persons were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B bearing my signature at point A. Accused persons were apprehended vide apprehension memo Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D respectively both bearing my signature at point A. I recorded the statement of witnesses. Accused persons were left free as they gave under taking that they will come to PS on the next day. On the next day both the accused persons came to the PS and joined the investigation. Version of the accused persons were recorded, same is Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F respectively both bearing my signature at point A. The car was released on superdari. I can identify the vehicle if shown to me. Identity of the offending vehicle FIR NO. 825/15.
PS. DWARKA NORTH.
U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA & Anr No. 422136/16 Page No. 8/15 is not disputed by Ld. Counsel for the accused. Site plan was prepared same is Ex.PW4/G bearing my signature at point A. Both the accused persons are present in the court, correctly identified by the witness".
10. Cross examination of PW4 is as follows "it is wrong to suggest that statement of Ct. Rajeev was taken at the PS and not at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that no such incident took place or that both the accused persons not present at the spot. Photographs of the i10 car were not taken by me at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that no separate complaint was given by the Devender with regard to the incident. Vol. His statement was recorded by me. It is wrong to suggest that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case and the car was planted one. It is wrong to suggest that statement of the Devender was never recorded at any point of time. Vol. His statement was recorded and same is Ex.PW4/D1. It is wrong to suggest that there was no damage in the Tata 709 of Devender. It is wrong to suggest that I never visited at the spot at any point of time or that no such incident took place. The distance between the picket and the spot is about 510 meters. Statement of the witnesses were recorded on the same day. I reached the spot within 10 minutes after receiving the call. I stayed at the spot for about 2 two and a FIR NO. 825/15.
PS. DWARKA NORTH.
U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA & Anr No. 422136/16 Page No. 9/15 half hours. It is wrong to suggest that I have not carried out the investigation in fair and proper and entire paper work has been done at the PS and not at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely".
11. Deposition of PW5 Ram Kumar, Record Clerk, has been reproduced as follows "today I have brought the summoned record i.e. the copy of MLC No. 16605 of Ct. Rajeev Kumar dated 08.10.2015. The said MLC is in the handwriting of Dr. Naveed. The said MLC is in the handwriting of Dr. Naveed. I can identify the handwriting of Dr. Naveed as I have seen him writing and signing in his due course of his duties. Dr. Naveed has presently left the hospital. The said MLC is Ex.PW5/A (OSR) bearing the signatures of Dr. Naveed at point A". This witness was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity being afforded to them.
12. In their joint statement recorded under section 294 CrPC both the accused persons admitted the genuineness of the DD No. 50A dated 08.10.2015, PS Dwarka North, FIR No. 825/15, PS Dwarka dated 08.10.2015, complaint u/s 195 CrPC, certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.P/A/1 to Ex. P/A/3 respectively. Thereafter, PE was closed.
FIR NO. 825/15.
PS. DWARKA NORTH.
U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA & Anr No. 422136/16 Page No. 10/15
13. Statements of both the accused persons were recorded under section 313 read with 281 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence were put to them for seeking their respective explanations. In the said respective statements, accused Harish Lakra stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he was going in his car bearing registration n o. DL10CS6331 alongwith Anil and the said car slightly hit one tempo and thereafter tempo driver started arguing with him and in the meanwhile, police reached the spot and took him to PS. He further stated that his signatures were obtained on some papers by the police and that he do not want to lead defence evidence. On the other hand accused Anil @ Naveen stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he was going alongwith Harish Lakra in his car bearing registration no. DL10CS6331 and the said car slightly hit one tempo and thereafter tempo driver started arguing with them and in the meanwhile, police reached the spot and took them to the PS. He further stated that his signatures were obtained on the some papers by the police. He also submitted that he do not want to lead defence evidence. Accordingly, DE was closed and final arguments in the matter were heard.
14. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for both the accused persons. I have carefully perused the case FIR NO. 825/15.
PS. DWARKA NORTH.
U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA & Anr No. 422136/16 Page No. 11/15 file.
15. 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. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
16. The prosecution has duly proved the complaint of the complainant PW1 Constable Rajeev Kumar as Ex.PW1/A and his testimony remains unrebutted as nothing exculpatory came on record during his cross examination. His testimony remains unblemished and consistent with the complaint filed by him which is already Ex.PW1/A. Therefore, the depositions of PW1 regarding the happening of incident inspires sufficient confidence and there is no reason to doubt the veracity regarding the occurrence of the incident. Hence, the entire incident as alleged in the complaint has been proved/substantiated beyond any reasonable doubt. Moreover, the complaint filed under section 195 CrPC, which is sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offences under section 186 IPC has also been admitted by the accused persons in their joint statement recorded under section 294 CrPC as Ex.PW/A/3.
FIR NO. 825/15.
PS. DWARKA NORTH.
U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA & Anr No. 422136/16 Page No. 12/15
17. Thus, the only contentious issue that survives in this case is regarding the testimony of PW3 as he had turned hostile and was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State was able to extract incriminating evidence qua the accused persons and his testimony corroborates with the deposition of PW1.
18. It has been argued on behalf of the accused persons that since no public witness was examined in the present case therefore a doubt has been created in the story of the prosecution. On the other hand it has been argued by the leaned APP for the state that though it is not denied that no public witness in the present case has been examined. However, Ld. APP differentiated the facts of the present case by submitting that there was public witness namely Devender who could not be brought to the court for recording of his deposition despite issuance of summons through DCP, Dwarka and hence, he was dropped from the list of witnesses. Pertinently this is not the case where no public witness was made in the present case by the investigating agency. Furthermore, the statement of public witness namely Devender was put to IO i.e. PW4 SI Banwari Lal as Ex.PW4/D1 which clearly point towards that public witness in the present case was examined by investigation agency and his statement corroborates with the testimony of PW1 and PW3 and complaint Ex.PW1/A. On FIR NO. 825/15.
PS. DWARKA NORTH.
U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA & Anr No. 422136/16 Page No. 13/15 careful perusal of Ex.PW4/D1 clearly point towards the occurrence of incident in question. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the accused persons that the no public witness in the present case was examined by the investigating agency is misconceived and baseless.
19. Furthermore, PW1 and PW3 were present at the spot and they both have not denied the incident in question and both the accused persons have also not disputed their presence at the spot. The act of the accused persons i.e. when PW1 tried to stop the quarrel between the accused persons and one Devender, he was beaten up by them clearly implies that PW1 who was a public servant as he being police official was obstructed in discharge of his duty and in doing so he was also assaulted and hurt was caused to him by the accused persons. It is also pertinent to mention here that there has not been any delay in the registration of the present case FIR. As per the MLCs of accused persons namely Harish Lakra and Anil @ Naveen, shows that they were in inebriated condition i.e. blood alcohol content was 81 mg/100 ml in respect of Harish Lakra and 51 mg/100 ml in respect of accused Anil @ Naveen and the said fact also gets corroborated from the testimony of PW1/complainant and Ex.PW4/D1.
20. In view of the, above discussion both the accused FIR NO. 825/15.
PS. DWARKA NORTH.
U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA & Anr No. 422136/16 Page No. 14/15 persons namely Harish Lakra and Anil @ Naveen are convicted for the offence punishable U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC.
Let both the convicts be heard on the point of sentence.
Digitally signedDEEPAK by DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2020.03.06 16:39:19 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (DEEPAK KUMARII) TODAY i.e. 06032020 MM06/DWK/NEW DELHI FIR NO. 825/15. PS. DWARKA NORTH. U/S. 186/332/353/34 IPC STATE VS. (1) HARISH LAKRA & Anr No. 422136/16 Page No. 15/15