Delhi District Court
3. Title Of The Case : State vs Ruliya Ram on 31 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH YADUVANSHI : ACMM0I
(CENTRAL) : TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
1. Case No. : 0366/P/08
2. Unique I.D. No. : 02401R0282512003
3. Title of the Case : State Vs Ruliya Ram
FIR No. 176/2002
PS : Paharganj
U/s 353/186 IPC
4. Date of Institution : 24.02.2003
5. Date of reserving judgment : 31.05.2012
6. Date of pronouncement : 31.05.2012
J U D G M E N T :
a) The Sl. No. of the case : 0366/P/08
b) The date of commission
of offence : 04.04.2003
c) The name of complainant : Sh. N. D. Gandhi
Divisional Engineer
DRM Office
New Delhi Railway Station
d) The name of accused : Ruliya Ram
S/o Braham Dass
R/o 99C, Naya Bazar
Railway Colony
Delhi6
e) The offence complained of : 353/186 IPC
FIR No. 176/2002 State Vs Ruliya Ram Page
1
of 11
f) The offence charged with : 353 IPC
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) The final order : 31.05.2012
i) The date of such order : 31.05.2012.
j) Brief facts of the decision of the case :
1. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused committed assault on the person of the complainant, Sh. N. D. Gandhi (PW2) while he was functioning as Estate Officer/ DRM office, Northern Railway, Delhi while presiding over the proceedings regarding eviction of the accused, an erstwhile employee of Railway on 04.04.2012. On the complaint of Sh. N.D. Gandhi (PW2), police officials were called for recording his statement (Ex. PW2/A) on the basis of which a rukka (Ex. PW4/A) was prepared by ASI Bhagirath Singh. The same was sent to PS Paharganj through Ct. Sudhir (not examined) who produced the same before the Duty officer concerned on which an FIR was registered in respect of commission of offence punishable U/s 353 IPC. The accused was arrested in the present case.
2. The statement of witnesses were recorded by the IO in support of prosecution's case and upon culmination of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the Court against the accused in respect of commission of offences punishable U/s 353/186 IPC.
FIR No. 176/2002 State Vs Ruliya Ram Page
2
of 11
3. On the basis of the material at hand, the Court served a notice in respect of commission of offence punishable U/s 353 IPC only upon the accused in accordance with Section 251 of Cr.P.C. on 06.10.2004, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined three witnesses from public including the complainant. Sh. Kewal Krishan examined as PW1 turned partly hostile to the prosecution. The complainant himself as PW2 supports the case of the prosecution but could not identify the accused in the Court.
5. Sh. Vikrant Vashist examined as PW3 stated to be Railway counsel at the relevant time and claimed presence at the spot of occurrence.
6. Out of the police officials involved in the investigation of this case only one witness / investigating officer namely retired SI Bhagirath Singh was examined as PW4.
7. All the prosecution witnesses were cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
8. The incriminating evidence against the accused was explained to FIR No. 176/2002 State Vs Ruliya Ram Page 3 of 11 him in his statement U/s 281 Cr.P.C. read with section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused claimed innocence submitting that the concerned Estate Officer abused him in filmy language and also threatened that Government quarter of the accused would be got vacated by him and he shall not be allowed to avail benefit of gratuity. According to him, as per the orders of Hon'ble Delhi High Court his Government quarter could have been vacated only after the service benefits were provided to him. It is the claim of the accused that on the submission aforesaid being made, the Estate Officer became angry, threatened and abused him and lodged this false complaint against him. The accused, despite option did not produce any evidence in support of his defence.
9. I have perused the record carefully. U/s 353 of IPC, the following are the essential elements to be proved viz.,
(a) 'Assault' or use of 'criminal force' to any person;
(b) Such person should be a public servant in the execution of his duty as such;
(c) With intent to prevent to deter such person from discharging his duty as such public servant or inconsequences of anything done or admitted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty.
FIR No. 176/2002 State Vs Ruliya Ram Page
4
of 11
10. The terms 'Assault' and 'Criminal Force' are defined in section 349/350 and Section 351 of IPC respectively.
11. The accused does not cause motion, change of motion or cessation of motion by any manner whatever and therefore there is no element of use of 'criminal force' on record of this case.
12. Statement (Ex. PW2/A) shows that the accused in connection with proceedings in respect of unauthorized occupation of government quarter stated to be conducted by the complainant as the Estate Officer was dictating foul language in cross examination. On objection by the Government Counsel and the Estate Officer, the accused asked the Estate Officer to shut up while doing other objectionable things. Towards the end of the statement, the Estate Officer further states that the accused while rising from his chair asked the Estate Officer to 'shut up' and raised his hand to beat him.
The averment as stated in Ex. PW2/A would constitute 'Assault'.
13. As per section 351 IPC, any gesture or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause the FIR No. 176/2002 State Vs Ruliya Ram Page 5 of 11 complainant to apprehend that the person make such gesture or preparation is about to use 'criminal force' is said to commit 'Assault'. As per the explanation appended to section 351 IPC, mere words do not amount to assault but the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gesture or preparations amount to an assault.
14. Ex. PW2/A does not clarify as to what foul language was being stated in the cross examination. At two places in the complaint, the complainant makes reference to the use of words 'shut up'. In fact, the way the complaint is drafted, an impression is bound to be taken to the effect that the addition of the last three sentences thereto made after request of initiating legal action is towards an improvement rather than reassertion of the criminality behind the acts of commission alleged upon the accused.
15. While being examined as PW2, the complainant could not identify the accused in the court. The names of Mr. Vikrant Vashisht, Advocate and confidential advisor to the complainant namely Ms. Salen were not in the initial statement (Ex.PW2/A). The said confidential advisor was not examined during prosecution evidence. The certified copies of the proceedings being conducted by the complainant in his capacity of Estate FIR No. 176/2002 State Vs Ruliya Ram Page 6 of 11 Officer, DRM Office were neither obtained by the IO nor the original records produced in this court despite the fact that as per Ex. PW2/A, the accused was recording foul language in the cross examination. The examination in chief of PW2 does not clarify that the incident occurred during cross examination as it refers to the examination of the accused in the proceedings before the Estate Officer. I have already said that the said proceedings are not before this court. IO did collect the documents regarding appointment of the complainant as Estate Officer. Moreover, the file of the proceedings which were purportedly disturbed by the accused while the complainant was actually discharging his functions as Estate Officer i.e., public servant was not cared to be produced in this court.
16. The complainant does not specify as to what filthy language was being used and what was being stated by accused. Similar is the position with the railway counsel Sh. Vikrant Vashisht examined as PW3.
17. Ex. PW2/A does not state that the complainant asked the Government Lawyer to advice the accused to behave properly but this fact is is added as an improvement over Ex. PW2/A in the examination in chief. PW2 does not say that the accused rose from his chair or stood upon the chair while showing him a slap and asking him to shut up. The chair FIR No. 176/2002 State Vs Ruliya Ram Page 7 of 11 becomes vital as it is only this statement of the complainant coupled with the alleged words used by the accused that would categorize the act of the accused as an 'assault' giving apprehension to the complainant that the accused was about to use 'criminal force'. The location of the said chair is not shown in the site plan. PW2 does not say that there was any chair from which the accused had risen or upon which the accused had climbed. Similar is the position in the testimony of PW3. In fact, PW3 does not say that the accused had told the complainant to 'shut up'.
18. Thus, I am of the opinion that the statement of PW2 suffers from improvement and is devoid of essential facts regarding the 'assault' committed upon him within the meaning of section 351 IPC. PW3 does point out towards the gesture made by the accused but does not refer to the aspect of the involvement of the chair and the corresponding words uttered by the accused. The relevant facts may have been explained properly by the prosecution witness Ms. Salen but she was not examined. In fact, there are two lists of witnesses which have been furnished with the charge sheet. The first list projects seven PWs whereas the second list projects thirteen PWs. The name of Ms. Salen appears in both the lists. She is not examined as also the relevant officials towards proof of the documents (Ex. PW2/B & C) as well as document mark 'X1' which are required towards proof of the FIR No. 176/2002 State Vs Ruliya Ram Page 8 of 11 posting of the complainant as a public servant in the capacity in which the prosecution states him to be.
19. In fact, a very essential eye witness of the prosecution namely Sh. Kewal Krishan examined as PW1 does not support them in his examination inchief and also in his cross examination conducted by the Ld. APP. He denies that the accused had assaulted the complainant and had stated anything to him. He could not say whether the accused had used any unpleasant words. He does say there was argument between the accused and the Estate Officer which to my mind may be in respect of defence stated by him in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
20. Furthermore, it is quiet surprising that the PW3 in his cross examination denied all questions pertaining to the defence of the accused regarding order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in civil writ No. 3659/95 for want of knowledge by stating that he did not remember. The said counsel was integral part of the proceedings stated to be conducted by PW2 in respect of which the accused was being cross examined. Thus, denying almost everything by saying that he did not remember appears strange on the part of PW3.
21. IO also creates certain confusion in this case as at one place in his FIR No. 176/2002 State Vs Ruliya Ram Page 9 of 11 examination in chief, he stated that the rukka was prepared by him and sent through Ct. Sudhir Kumar for registration of the case. However, on the other hand, in his cross examination, he states that "I did not send rukka for registration of the case as the complainant told me that my court is working and have summoned the accused Ruliya Ram".
21. The chain of evidence in the present case is also incomplete as the prosecution did not examine several important witnesses.
22. Thus, the aspect of the basic element of assault i.e., raising hand towards the complainant is differently described in different manner in statement Ex.PW2/A and by PW2 & 3 in their statements recorded in the court. On the contrary, PW1 denies the element of 'assault' on the part of the accused. The prosecution did not impute any kind of motive to PW1 in connection with reason as to why he would state falsely as against his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C (Ex. PW1/A).
23. Thus, I am of the considered view that the essential ingredients towards proof of the assault is not proved by the prosecution. In the result, the accused namely Ruliya Ram is acquitted from the charge framed against him in the present case. PB/SB of the accused are extended for a further period of six FIR No. 176/2002 State Vs Ruliya Ram Page 10 of 11 months in terms of section 437A Cr.PC.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (MANISH YADUVANSHI) on 31.05.2012 ACMM01 DELHI
It is certified that this judgment contains 11 (Eleven) Pages and each page bears my signature.
(MANISH YADUVANSHI)
ACMM01 DELHI
FIR No. 176/2002 State Vs Ruliya Ram Page
11
of 11