Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravinder Singh, Fir No. 443/98, Ps ... on 2 July, 2011
State Vs. Ravinder Singh, FIR No. 443/98, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 186/353 IPC, Page No.1 IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. FIR NO. 443/98 PS. Shalimar Bagh. U/s.186/353 IPC. State Vs. Ravinder Singh JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 527/47
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 01.03.1999
C. UNIQUE ID NO : 02401R0068721999
D. DATE OF OFFENCE : 04.07.1998
E. NAME OF THE : SI Suresh Kumar
COMPLAINANT
F. NAME OF THE : Ravinder Singh Kohli
ACCUSED S/o Sh. Surjeet Singh
G. OFFENCE
COMPLAINED OF : U/s 186/353 IPC
H. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
I. FINAL ORDER : Convicted U/s 186 IPC.
J. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 02.07.11.
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case as unfolded from the chargesheet are that on 04.07.1998 at about 10.20 pm in front of Richi Rich Restaurant, Delhi, the accused alongwith two other persons came in a maruti car, where the complainant SI Suresh Kumar was conducting investigation of an accident case State Vs. Ravinder Singh, FIR No. 443/98, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 186/353 IPC, Page No.2 in which his wife Smt. Javneet Kaur was an accused. Thereafter, the accused Ravinder started misbehaving with Sh. Prashant Gupta, complainant of that accident case and when the accused was asked by complainant SI Suresh Kumar not to misbehave with Sh. Prashant Gupta then, the accused started misbehaving with him and asked his wife to leave the spot with the offending vehicle of the aforesaid accident case i.e. Tata Sumo. Thus, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused obstructed the complainant SI Suresh Kumar i.e. public servant in discharge of his official duties as a public servant and also assaulted or used force against him, while he was discharging his public duties. On the basis of the statement given by the complainant SI Suresh Kumar, the present FIR U/s.186/353 IPC was registered at PS Shalimar Bagh. On conclusion of investigation, the present challan under the aforesaid sections was filed in the court.
2. The accused was summoned by the court for facing trial under the aforesaid sections. In compliance of Section 207 Cr. P. C., the copy of the challan and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to the accused. Prima facie charge U/s.186/353 IPC was made out against the accused. Accordingly, on 16.02.2000 the charge was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence. State Vs. Ravinder Singh, FIR No. 443/98, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 186/353 IPC, Page No.3
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 4 witnesses. PW1 Sh. Prashant Gupta is the complainant of the accident case in respect of which an FIR No. 442/98 PS Shaliamar Bagh had been registered against the wife of the accused namely Javneet Kaur and he has testified that on 05.07.1998 he was going from Ashok Vihar to his house on maruti car (Zen) bearing No. DL2CK3477 and when he reached just before red light near Richi Rich Restaurant, there one lady namely Javneet Kaur, who was driving Tata Sumo bearing No. DL 8CB8629, started quarreling with him. He has further deposed that thereafter, he called at 100 number. He has further stated that SI Suresh Kumar reached there and SI Suresh Kumar inquired from him about the accident case and when he was narrating the facts to him in the meantime, the accused came in a maruti car at about 10.15/10.30 pm. He has further testified that SI Suresh Kumar was talking to him and accused/sardarjee after talking with that lady came to him and started giving him abuses and quarreling with him. He has further stated that, accused started misbehaving and quarreling with the complainant SI Suresh Kumar and he again called at 100 number. Thereafter, PCR reached the spot and the police officials of the PCR tried to pacify the accused, who was using abusive words. He has testified that in the meantime, the said lady Javneet Kaur ran away from the spot alongwith the Tata Sumo. He has proved the personal search memo of the accused exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. State Vs. Ravinder Singh, FIR No. 443/98, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 186/353 IPC, Page No.4
4. PW2 Ct. Dinesh has testified that on 04.07.1998 he was posted as Ct. at PS Shalimar Bagh and on that day, on receipt of DD No. 75, he alongwith SI Suresh Kumar reached at the spot i.e. Richi Rich Restaurant, Ring Road, Delhi. He has further deposed that there they found two vehicles one was maruti car and the other was tata sumo in an accidental condition. He has further stated that there one Gupta was present and his statement was recorded by the complainant SI Suresh Kumar and during this Mrs. Ravinder Kaur was present there and started saying that he is harassing him. He has further stated that after sometime, the accused Ravinder Singh came in a maruti car alongwith his associates and he was also saying that he is harassing his wife. Thereafter, he deposed that the accused asked his wife to go from there alongwith her vehicle and further stated that he will see the matter. He was subsequently, cross examined by Ld. APP for the State and his crossexamination he has deposed that the accused disturbed/obstructed the complainant SI Suresh Kumar in his official discharge of duties.
5. PW3 Sh. Rishi Pal, Addl. DCP, SG/Security has testified that in the year 1998, he was posted as ACP SubDivision, Rohini, Delhi and he has proved his complaint U/s 195 Cr. P. C. as Ex.PW3/A.
6. PW4 SI Suresh Kumar is complainant of this case and he has also deposed on the similar lines as that of PW1. Therefore, his testimony is not State Vs. Ravinder Singh, FIR No. 443/98, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 186/353 IPC, Page No.5 repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. Thereafter, PE was closed.
7. Statement of the accused U/s. 313/281 Cr. P. C was recorded. All the incriminating evidence were put to the accused for seeking his explanation. In the said statement the accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has further stated that he is innocent. He has further submitted that Sh. Prashant Gupta was a muscle man and he was harassing his wife and when he reached at the spot, he started demanding excessive money, though his car was not damaged in the accident. He preferred to lead evidence in defence. Accordingly, the matter was listed for defence evidecne.
8. DW1 Smt. Javneet Kaur, W/o Sh. Ravinder Singh Kohli has testified that it was about 15 years back, she alongwith her children was going from Punjabi Bagh in a Tata Sumo, she was driving the said vehicle, when she reached in front of Richi Rich Restaurant, Shalimar Bagh, a person, the name of whom, she did not remember overtook her vehicle and stopped immediately in front of her vehicle. She has further deposed that the said person used abusive language and forced her and her children to get down from her vehicle. She has further stated that he alleged that his vehicle hit her vehicle. Thereafter, she called her husband that is the accused namely Ravinder Singh Kohli and he reached the spot after about an hour. She has further testified that the said person State Vs. Ravinder Singh, FIR No. 443/98, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 186/353 IPC, Page No.6 misbehaved with her husband and called up SI from Shalimar Bagh. Subsequently, the situation worsened and her husband asked them to leave the spot. She has further stated that thereafter, the false case was registered against her husband i.e. the accused. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed and accordingly the matter was listed for final arguments.
9. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused . I ave carefully perused the case file.
10. 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 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.
11. In order to prove the guilt of the accused U/s 186 IPC the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients as mentioned in said section:
(i) A public servant was in discharge of his official duty;
(ii) Voluntary obstruction was caused to such public servant; and
(iii) Such obstruction was in the discharge of public function of such public servant.
12. In respect of the guilt of the accused U/s 353 IPC the prosecution is State Vs. Ravinder Singh, FIR No. 443/98, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 186/353 IPC, Page No.7 required to prove the following ingredients as mentioned in said section:
(i) Accused assaulted or used criminal force to a public servant;
(ii) Such public servant was then acting in the discharge of his duty;
(iii) Accused assaulted with the intention of preventing or deterring such public servant from discharging his duty, or
(iv) It was used in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by the said public servant.
13. In the present case, prosecution has alleged that the accused assaulted or used force against the complainant PW4 SI Suresh Kumar with an intention to prevent or deter him from discharge of his public duties. PW4/complainant SI Suresh Kumar has deposed that the accused was using abusive language and he started scuffling with him and with the PCR officials. However, the remaining witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh. Prashant Gupta, PW2 Ct. Dinesh and PW3 Addl. DCP Sh. Rishi Pal has not stated anything about the scuffling incident. PW2 Ct. Dinesh and PW1 Sh. Prashant Gupat were present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. However, their testimonies are conspicuously silent regarding the criminal force or assault caused by the accused against the complainant. The said witnesses have merely stated that the accused was misbehaving, quarreling and using abusive language against the complainant. The quarrel is merely a State Vs. Ravinder Singh, FIR No. 443/98, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 186/353 IPC, Page No.8 verbal argument and none of the said witnesses have deposed that he made such gesture or preparation with an intention to use criminal force to the complainant. The said conduct of the accused cannot by any stretch of imagination can be termed as assault or use of criminal force against the complainant. Further, the complaint U/s 195 Cr. P. C. exhibited as Ex.PW3/A does not find mention regarding the alleged use of criminal force or assault committed by the accused against the complainant. Therefore, the testimony of PW4/complainant SI Suresh Kumar regarding use of criminal force by the accused remains uncorroborated by the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses allegedly present at the spot. Moreover, the other eyewitnesses to the incident i.e. PCR officials have failed to appear in the court for deposition. Therefore, the testimony of PW4/complainant SI Suresh Kumar does not inspire sufficient confidence to indict the accused for the offence U/s 353 IPC. Hence, the essential ingredients of the said section are not satisfied. Thus, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and accordingly, he is acquitted for the offence U/s 353 IPC.
14. In respect of the second offence i.e. offence U/s 186 IPC all the prosecution witnesses have categorically and specifically stated that the accused obstructed the complainant/PW4 SI Suresh Kumar in discharge of his public duties, while he was investigating the accident case, in which the wife of the accused namely Javneet Kuar is the accused. The principle of falsus in uno State Vs. Ravinder Singh, FIR No. 443/98, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 186/353 IPC, Page No.9 falsus in omnibus does not apply to the criminal trial in India. One hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or exaggeration and also embellishments. Merely because, the testimony of a witness is not credit worthy in respect of any specific deposition, it does not mean that his entire testimony is liable to be discarded. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff instead of rejecting the prosecution case on general grounds. It is not denied that the deposition of PW4 regarding the offence U/s 353 IPC is disbelieved, but since his testimony pertaining to the offence U/s 186 IPC is in corroboration and consistent with the testimonies of the remaining prosecution witnesses, therefore, there is an element of truth in it. Further, his testimony in respect of offence U/s 186 IPC is also corroborated by an independent and a public witness i.e. PW1 Sh. Prashant Gupta.
15. Besides that, the testimony of PW4 has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted as the accused chose not to crossexamine the said witness. It is not only proved that the complainant/PW4 SI Suresh Kumar is a public servant and was investigating a case FIR No. 442/98 at the date, time and place of the incident, but it is also not denied by the accused. Therefore, the only point of contention in the present case is whether the accused obstructed the complainant in discharge of his public duties or not. The defence witness i.e. DW1 Smt. Javneet Kaur has herself deposed in her testimony that her husband i.e. the accused Ravinder Singh asked her to leave the spot. The DW1 was an accused in a case FIR No. 442/98 PS Shalimar Bagh and her offending vehicle was a State Vs. Ravinder Singh, FIR No. 443/98, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 186/353 IPC, Page No.10 case property in the said case which was being investigated by the complainant/PW4 SI Suresh Kumar. Therefore, she was not entitled to leave the spot without the permission of the IO, as investigation in the said case at the spot was still going on. Therefore, it itself amounts to obstruction in the discharge of public duties of the IO of the said case i.e. complainant/PW4. Moreover, all the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the accused obstructed the complainant in discharge of his duties. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the said witnesses, which is further corroborated by the defence witness. Thus, the prosecution has successfully discharged the onus of proving all the essential ingredients of the offence U/s 186 IPC against the accused, beyond any reasonable doubt.
In the light of the above discussion, the accused Ravinder Singh is convicted for the offence U/s 186 IPC.
Put up on 15.07.11 for quantum on sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN OPEN COURT (DHEERAJ MOR)
i.e. 02/07/11. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. Ravinder Singh, FIR No. 443/98, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 186/353 IPC, Page No.11
FIR NO. 443/98
PS. Shalimar Bagh.
U/s 186 IPC
State Vs Ravinder
02/07/11.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused on bail with counsel.
Vide my separate judgment announced in the open court today, the accused Ravinder Singh stands convicted for the offence punishable U/s 186 IPC.
Put up on 15.07.11 for quantum on sentence.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM/Rohini/Delhi 02/07/11.