Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Abdul Rehman on 29 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJEET SINGH JASPAL:
LD. ACMM-04, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CNR No.DLCT12-000051-2023
Cr.C.No.4/2023
FIR No.46/2009
PS Seelampur
U/s 186/332/353/452/
506/509/34 IPC
State Vs. 1. Abdul Rehman
2. Asma
JUDGMENT
1. Date of commission of offence : 04.02.2009
2.Name & address of Complainant: Smt. Razia Begum, Principal, Zeenat Mahal Sarvodiya Vidhyalya, Jafrabad, Delhi
3. Name and address of the accused: 1. Abdul Rehman S/o Hazi Noor Mohd.
2. Asma W/o Abdul Rehman Both R/o 629, Gali No.26, Jafrabad, Delhi
4. Offence complained of : U/s 186/332/353/452/ 506/509/34 IPC FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 1 of 51
5. Plea of accused persons : Both pleaded not guilty
6. Final order : Convicted
7. Date of such order : 29.04.2023 Date of Institution of case : 01.02.2010 Date of decision of the case : 29.04.2023 Date of conclusion of final arguments: 21.04.2023
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked to decide allegations of assault, criminal intimidation etc. against accused persons Abdul Rehman and Asma, wherein the former is a sitting MLA from constituency of Seelampur. It needs to be mentioned here that this is a special court constituted upon the orders of Hon' ble Supreme Court of India to decide the matters pertaining to sitting/former Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly only. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the matter at hand i.e. FIR No.46/2009, PS Seelampur, wherein MLA Abdul Rehman is an accused, alongwith his wife Ms. Asma.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 2 of 51
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that present case was registered on the complaint of Ms. Razia Begum, who at the time of incident was employed as a Government Servant, working under Directorate of Education (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) and on the date of the alleged incident she was holding the post of Principal of a Government School.
3. As per the complainant, on 04.02.2009, at around 9:00 a.m., while performing duties as a Principal of SKV School, Jafrabad, Delhi, she was slapped by the accused Asma, thus causing simple hurt to the complainant. It is further alleged that the co-accused Abdul Rehman alongwith few other persons, barged into the school, after having made preparation of causing hurt. As per the complainant, accused persons also threatened to kill her and also abused her with an intention to outrage her modesty.
4. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court. On the basis of charge sheet and annexed documents, cognizance of offences was taken and the FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 3 of 51 accused persons were summoned to face trial. After hearing the parties, charge of offences under section 451/323/506/509/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Vide order dated 14.11.2018, Ld. Predecessor of this Court disposed off an application u/s 216 Cr.PC, seeking alteration of charge and consequent thereto an altered charge for the offences u/s 186/353/332/452/506/509 IPC was framed.
6. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined five witnesses. Before proceeding further I deem it appropriate to take on record the gist of testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
7. PW1 Ms. Razia Begum, the complainant is star witness for the prosecution. She deposed that on 04.02.2009, at about 9:00 a.m., the accused Asma forcefully entered in her chamber, despite the resistance of the Chowkidar Ram Bhool and started arguing with her, in the presence of Ms. Gandhi (Vice Principal), Ms. Sneh Lata (UDC), two IT FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 4 of 51 Assistants, Mr. Raza Hussain (TGT Maths) and Mr. Khan (Sanitary Inspector, MCD) and one guardian to make some provision for the safe and sound parking of the scooty of her daughter and also permit her daughter to commute by scooty to the school.
8. The complainant further deposed that upon denial of the request of the accused Asma by her, the said accused suddenly plunged towards her and slapped her on her face and before she could regain her composer, she again attempted to hit her however, she was stopped by the staff members present in the Chamber of the complainant.
9. Further as per the complainant, the accused Asma made a mobile call to her husband i.e. co-accused Abdul Rehman, who arrived at the spot alongwith five-six men. As per the complainant, accused Abdul Rehman compelled the security guard i.e Chowkidar PW-Ram Bhool to open the gates and barged into the Chamber of the complainant and started threatening her. She stated that the accused Abdul Rehman also used vituperative words regarding her mother FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 5 of 51 and also threatened to abduct her and used all kind of verbal nonsense.
10.She further deposed that at her request, IT Assistant made a call to Deputy Director Education, Yamuna Vihar and within 15 minutes Education Officer, Neelima Sharma reached in her Chamber. In the meantime, police and local MLA Ms. Mateen Ahmed also arrived at the spot and tried to settle the matter. As per her, on the next date, she lodged a formal complaint Ex.PW1/A with the police and at her instance IO prepared the site plan Mark X. She correctly identified the accused Abdul Rehman and Accused Asma before the court.
11.During her further examination in chief on 11.04.2023 (subsequent to alteration of charge vide order dated 14.11.2018), she deposed that the accused Abdul Rehman abused her and her mother (gaaliyo kee bauchar shuru kardee) and also told her that she would be abducted, removed from the service and anything would be done with her and her mother.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 6 of 51
12. PW-2 Sh. Ram Bhool turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
13. PW-3 HC Jagdev Singh proved the arrest memos Ex.PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B. As per him, the IO recorded his statement regarding arrest of the accused persons. He correctly identified both the accused persons before the court.
14. PW-4 Sh. R.D. Khan also did not support the case of the prosecution and he was declared hostile.
15. PW-5 SI Jagdish Narayan is the IO of the case. He deposed that on 04.02.2009, he received DD No.4A at about 9:00 a.m, upon which he alongwith Ct. Jagdev reached at Sarvodya Vidhalya, Government School, Jeenat Mehal, Jafrabad, Delhi, where the Principal of the said school namely Razia Begum i.e. the complainant, met him and told him that she was busy with her official work and would make a written complaint later, thereafter, on 05.02.2009, she made a written complaint Ex.PW1/A upon FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 7 of 51 which he prepared the rukka Ex.PW5/A and handed over the same to DO to get the case registered.
16. As per him, on 05.02.2009, he prepared the site plan Mark X, at the instance of the complainant and also recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant, PW-2 Ram Bhool (Watchman), PW-4 I.D. Khan (Sanitary Inspector), Raza Hussain (staff member) and PW-3 Ct. Jagdev. He further deposed that on the next day i.e. 06.02.2009, he called both the accused at the PS and arrested them vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively. He correctly identified both the accused persons before the court.
17. No other witness was examined in PE and after examination of all prosecution witnesses the PE was closed.
18.As is mandated by Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons were given due opportunity to personally explain circumstances appearing against them in evidence, in the matter at hand. They were questioned generally on the case.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 8 of 51 All the incriminating facts and circumstances were put to them, as appeared in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
19.In the course of examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons stated that they are being falsely implicated and that they do not even know the complainant in the present matter and they both saw her for the first time in the court itself.
20. Accused Asma Begum stated, without oath, in the course of examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that on 04.02.2009, she was pregnant and was about to deliver. She stated, without oath, that her husband never had any black coloured car. As per her, false case was filed against her and she thought that the complainant is Razia Sultana, who was Counselor of the area and she got to know about the present complainant only after the case started in the court. Lastly, she stated that she is common known personality of the area as she was the Counselor of the area in the year 2017.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 9 of 51
21. Similarly, even accused Abdul Rehman stated that he is innocent and he never went to the aforementioned school. As per him, the present false case has been continuing at the instance of Mateen Ahmed, MLA, being his political rival. He further stated that once, in front of the SHO, he threatened him that he (Mateen Ahmed) will falsely implicate him in a false case and thereafter he orchestrated the present case. As per him, perhaps someone must have shown his photograph to the complainant and also that he is politically active and his posters are common in the area and thus people know him.
22. The defence chose not to lead DE, despite grant of opportunity.
23.As is the norm, the matter was then taken to the stage of final arguments. Due opportunity was given to both the sides. Oral arguments were heard at length, however, despite grant of time and opportunity, neither side filed written arguments.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 10 of 51
24. Ld. APP argued that even though PW Ram Bhool and PW R.D. Khan have turned hostile, the complainant who is the star witness of the prosecution has deposed clearly and has withstood the test of cross examination. As per Ld. APP the testimony of the complainant inspires confidence and is in consonance with her previous statement. Ld. APP has further argued that PW Ram Bhool and R.D. Khan have been won over by the defence as accused Abdul Rehman is the local MLA.
25.As per Ld. APP, conviction can be based upon the sole testimony of the complainant herself. Further as per Ld. APP there is no delay in lodging the FIR and even if there is any delay the same has been sufficiently explained by the complainant in her testimony.
26. In the course of the final arguments, Ld. Counsel Sh.
Himalaya Gupta, representing both the accused persons argued that the case at hand is nothing but an abuse of process of law. As per the defence, there is no medical/MLC on record to substantiate the allegations of FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 11 of 51 the complainant and therefore, as per the defence, the story of the complainant becomes doubtful.
27. Ld. Defence Counsel vehemently argued that there is no CCTV footage on record, despite the fact that it has come on record that there were CCTV cameras on the school campus. Further more, it was argued that the visitor's register does not bear any entry of the accused persons which, by itself makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.
28.Drawing attention of the court to the testimonies of PW Ram Bhool and PW R.D. Khan, it was argued by the defence that all the prosecution witnesses, apart from the complainant, are hostile and this causes a serious dent in the prosecution story and makes its rather unbelievable.
29.The defence further argued that there is a delay in lodging the FIR, which lays a ground to disbelieve the prosecution story.
30.Lastly, the defence has argued that at the time of the alleged incident, the accused Asma was nine months pregnant and FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 12 of 51 in such condition it is impossible to display behaviour, as is alleged by the prosecution.
31.The complainant was represented by a counsel through out the trial. Ld. Counsel for the complainant endorsed the submissions of Ld. APP and further submitted that the complainant is fighting a lone battle from a long time and that her testimony cannot be discarded merely because the two prosecution witnesses have chosen to go hostile.
32.Having heard the submissions and having perused the record, I shall now proceed to decide the matter on its merits.
33. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Asma stormed into the premises of the aforementioned school and then entered the Chamber of the complainant, assaulted her, intimidated her and therefore, various offences under IPC were committed by the said accused and later the said accused called her husband, co-accused Abdul Rehman to the spot. Upon arrival at the spot, the said accused, in furtherance of his common intention with co-accused FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 13 of 51 Asma, inter-alia committed trespass by forcefully entering in the school premises, threatened the complainant who was holding the post of the Principal of a Government School, criminally intimidated her and spoke words which intended to insult the modesty of the complainant.
34.To begin with, each of these allegation need to be examined separately, i.e. from the allegation of trespass to the allegation of assault and criminal intimidation etc. Furthermore, it must be seen whether there was delay in FIR and whether the testimony of the complainant is worth believing in light of testimony of PW Ram Bhool and PW R.D. Khan.
Criminal Trespass
35. As per the prosecution, the accused Asma entered the school premises without permission and despite resistance from the security guard PW Ram Bhool. Accused Abdul Rehman too entered in the similar manner. It is alleged that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, committed house trespass by entering the school premises, in order to commit offence of hurt and criminal FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 14 of 51 intimidation against the complainant. Since the two entries in the school premises were with force and were caused upon an intimidation to the security guard PW Ram Bhool, as per the prosecution the offence u/s 451/452 r/w Sec. 34 is made out against both the accused persons.
36.What transpired at the entry gate of the school could have best been proved by the testimony of PW Ram Bhool, who was manning the main gate of the school at the relevant time, however, the said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution.
37. As per the said witness i.e. PW-2 Ram Bhool, even though he was working as the Watchman of the aforementioned school, he does not know anything about the matter at hand. He was cross examined by Ld. APP, wherein he categorically denied the suggestion that on 04.09.2009, accused Abdul Rehman and accused Asma came to the school and tried to forcefully enter the school. He further deposed that he cannot say if accused persons abused and slapped the complainant.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 15 of 51
38.The testimony of the complainant states that at the relevant time she was inside her office and thus what transpired at the main gate could obviously not be known to the complainant. The episode at the main gate could have best been proved by PW Ram Bhool, however, since the said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its allegations of trespass against the accused persons.
39. Further more, it has clearly come in the testimony of the complainant that to begin with accused Asma made requests to accommodate her daughter's scooty in the school. The contextually relevant portion of the said testimony is reproduced hereunder :
"Accused Ashma requested me that I must make some provision for the safe and sound parking of the scooty of her daughter and permit her daughter to commute by scooty to the school. At that point of time the Vice Principal Ms. Gandhi, UDC Ms. Sneh Lata, two IT Assistants (I do not remember their names now), Mr. Raza Hussain; TGT Maths, Mr. Khan; Sanitary Inspector MCD and one guardian were also present in my Chamber.
I tried to explain to accused Ashma that it is not feasible for us to make such a provision. I told her that it is also not legally permissible for a minor to drive the scooty, more over, since our school is FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 16 of 51 situated at GT Road it would be unsafe to the child also. Further, it would not be salubrious to the other children studying in the school, who belong to lowest strata of the society, as it would create an inferiority complex in them. However, Ms. Ashma was not persuaded and she counter argued that the scooty has been gifted by the maternal uncle of the kid and when would she drive the same. I told her that the scooty can be driven by her after the school hours. However, since she was not convinced I requested her to seek a formal permission from Deputy Director Education Yamuna Vihar."
40. The perusal of the said portion of the testimony clearly shows that in complainant's own version the said accused came to the school with a request (howsoever wrong) to seek accommodation for parking of her daughter's scooty on the school campus, meaning thereby it can not be said that the accused Asma entered the school with premeditated motive of committing various offences, as are alleged by the prosecution.
41.Furthermore, qua accused Abdul Rehman too there is no material on record to show that he entered the school by way of forceful entry. It has further not been proved that the Watchman/Chowkidar PW-2 Ram Bhool was harmed or intimidated at any manner at the entry gate of the school.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 17 of 51
42. Ergo, it can be said that the case u/s 451/452 IPC is not made out against both the accused persons.
Hurt, Section 332 IPC
43. Next, the allegations of hurt on the person of the complainant need to be examined.
44. The complainant has deposed on oath that the accused Asma slapped her and caused simple injury on her person, thereafter, she called her husband i.e co-accused Abdul Rehman, to the spot of the incident and the two accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, extended threats to kill her and abused her with intention to insult her modesty. It is the case of the prosecution that at the relevant time, the complainant was the Principal of a Government School, therefore, she is a public servant and since the incident in question happened at the time when the complainant was discharging her duties as a public servant, offence u/s 332 r/w 34 IPC is made out against both the accused persons.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 18 of 51
45. Scrutiny of the testimony of the complainant reveals that as per her she was slapped by accused Asma, in the Principal's office, in the presence of Vice Principal Ms. Gandhi, UDC Sneh Lata, two IT Assistants (name unknown), Mr. Raza Hussain, Mr. Khan, who is Sanitary Inspector and one guardian of a student who was present in the Chamber. In her own words, when accused Asma tried to slap her the second time, her attempts to assault the complainant were thwarted by other school officials present therein.
46. Perusal of the complaint, given by the complainant to the SHO, PS Seelam Pur i.e. document Ex. PW1/A also discloses the name of Sanitary Inspector R.D. Khan, the Vice Principal, UDC, IT staff and one student called Sana Rabbi and her mother, as the witnesses present at the time of alleged incident.
47.Even though the prosecution has roped in PW R.D. Khan as prosecution witness none of the other mentioned names have been called to prove the case of the prosecution, despite them being direct eye witnesses to the incident.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 19 of 51
48. PW R.D. Khan was called to the witness box to support the prosecution's case however, he stated on oath that he does not know why he was called as a witness in the present matter. He deposed that the police did not meet him at any point of time, nor inquired anything from him. Having taken permission from the court and having declared the said witness as hostile, the said witness was cross examined by ld. APP. In the course of cross examination, he denied the suggestion that on 04.02.2009, he was present in the aforementioned school and that accused Asma slapped the complainant in his presence. He further denied that he, with the help of PW Ram Bhool, saved the complainant.
49.Similarly, PW Ram Bhool also, as already noted hereinabove, has claimed ignorance about the entire episode alleged by the complainant.
50.The complainant was cross examined twice i.e. firstly on 21.10.2013 and secondly, subsequent to the alteration of charge vide order dated 14.11.2018, on 11.04.2023.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 20 of 51
51. Perusal of the cross-examination of the complainant reveals that even though there are minor contradictions in her testimony, however there are no major contradictions /improvements. Her testimony is coherent and thus it can be said that the complainant has withstood the test of cross examination. The record further reveals that the testimony is in consonance with her statement/complaint made on the letter head of the school, on the basis of which the present FIR was registered (i.e. document Ex.PW1/A). The testimonies of the police witnesses prove the investigation done and once again no contradictions could be highlighted by the defence.
52. In the course of the cross examination, the accused persons could not successfully agitate the defence taken. The perusal of the cross-examination of the complainant and perusal of the statement of the accused persons recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, shows that whereas the accused persons have tried to put the defence that on the day of the alleged incident no such altercation happened at the school as is alleged by the complainant and accused Asma rather entered the school after consent from the Chowkidar as it is FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 21 of 51 not possible to forcefully enter the school by breaking open the lock; however, at the stage of examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC the defence is that the accused persons have never been to the school of the complainant and have seen the complainant in the court for the first time. Also, the defence has argued that accused was nine month pregnant at the time of the incident has not been proved by any iota of evidence and hence has no value.
53.A question which arises at this juncture is whether the case of the prosecution can stand only on the shoulders of the testimony of one witness, specially since the other eye witnesses (as claimed by the prosecution), have turned hostile.
54. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for proof of any fact. It is open to the court to believe or disbelieve a statement, however, simply because the statement is of one witness, cannot by itself be a ground for not acting upon the said testimony. Neither the number of witnesses, nor the quantity of evidence is material. It is the quality that matters.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 22 of 51
55. As has been observed by Hon'ble higher courts, there is a general public reluctance in appearing as witnesses. Hence there should be no insistence that there should be more witnesses than one and it is understandable too if a witness turns hostile. In State of UP v. Anil Singh (AIR 1988 SC 1998), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor is it proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable."
56. In case titled as Appabhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1988 SC 696), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the contention qua nonjoining of independent witnesses in a murder case, where the murder was caused at a bus stop, gave following observations:
" It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilance. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 23 of 51 is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused."
57.In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a timehonoured principle that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by S. 134 of the Evidence Act.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 24 of 51
58.Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important "probabilities-factor" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses.
59.The Supreme Court has been sustaining convictions on the basis of the testimony of a sole witness. In Madanlal v. State {(1978) Cri LJ 1832}, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :
"There is no computerised rule. Nor are judges computers. It must always depend on the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness. In this case, we find there is abundant evidence direct and circumstantial to prove the guilt of the appellants. The trial court called the appellants "daredevils of the locality. No one was willing to come forward to depose against them. In such circumstances, as always, the court has to separate the grain from the chaff."
60.It is not the duty of the prosecution to examine all material witnesses who could give an account of the narrative of the events upon which the prosecution is essentially based irrespective of considerations of number and of reliability.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 25 of 51 It is the quality of the testimony which matter and not its quantity or the number of witnesses. Failure to examine all witness named in the FIR or any of the neighbours would not make testimony of the best and natural witnesses unreliable. Reliance is based on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maqsoodan v. State of UP (AIR 1983 SC 126).
61.In State of UP v. Hakim Singh (AIR 1980 SC184), the court observed that the fact that some witnesses are not produced does not pass a reflection on the probative value of the testimony of those who are actually produced.
62.Coming to the matter at hand, in the light of the aforementioned observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the legislative mandate as contained in Sec. 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, it can be said that there is no embargo that the case of the prosecution cannot be believed to be correct on the basis of the testimony of a sole witness. It is not difficult to understand that the other prosecution witnesses, being Government Servants themselves, may FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 26 of 51 find it difficult to depose against a Member of Legislative Assembly and that to the one who is associated with the current ruling party. As has been observed hereinabove by this court, the testimony of the complainant is coherent and is devoid of any major contradictions. The complainant has firmly stated that she was assaulted at the hands of accused Asma. Her statement is consistent and coherent and it can be said that she has survived the test of crossexamination. In such circumstances, taking clue from the abovementioned observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is safe to say that the sole testimony of the complainant is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution qua assault on the person of the complainant.
63. Furthermore, the argument put forth by the Defence that other persons who were stated to be present in the office of the Principal, (example, Ms. Neelima Sharma, guardian of a student, school staff, etc.) at the time of the assault, were not roped in as witnesses and hence the case of the prosecution is liable to be rejected, does not hold any FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 27 of 51 ground in light of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maqsoodan (Supra) and Hakim Singh (Supra).
64.Additionally, it has sufficiently come on record that on the relevant date i.e., 04.02.2009, the complainant was holding the post of the principal of the govt. school and while she was in discharge of her duties, during official school hours, she was caused simple hurt by the accused Asma. The defence has nowhere denied that complainant is not a public servant nor has it ever been doubted that she was the principal of the govt. school on the relevant date.
65. Next, the contention of the defence that there is no MLC on record to show simple injury on the person of the complainant needs to be dealt. It is a settled law that the prosecution need not produce a medicolegal certificate (MLC) to show simple injuries. In the matter at hand also, the allegation of the complainant is that she was slapped by accused Asma. The court is mindful of the fact that a slap may not cause serious injuries which would warrant medical assistance or treatment and in such circumstances, FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 28 of 51 it is not uncalled for, for the investigating agency, to not get the MLC done. In the considered opinion of this court, the fact that there is no MLC on record, does not by itself casts a doubt on the testimony of the complainant.
66.Issue of delay in the FIR also needs to be answered. The defence has argued that there is a delay in lodging the FIR, which lays a ground to disbelieve the prosecution story. As per the Ld. Defence Counsel the alleged incident took place on 04.02.2009 however FIR is dated 05.02.2009, this shows that the FIR is merely an afterthought. Ld. APP on the other hand, has argued that there is no delay in lodging the FIR and even if there is any delay the same has been sufficiently explained by the complainant in her testimony.
67.It is a settled law that mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot be regarded, by itself, as fatal to the case of the prosecution. If the delay is sufficiently explained, in the back drop of the case, the same ought to be negated. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Gyan Chand (2001) 6 FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 29 of 51 SCC 71, a three judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :
"Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case."
68.Coming back to the matter at hand, there is a delay of only one day in the registration of the FIR. The complainant has explained the delay by stating the following in her testimony :
"Police asked me to give my complaint in writing. However, I was not able to cope up with emotional trauma and the fast changing sequence of events, as no such thing has ever happened to me, I requested the police officials that I shall give my complaint to their office on the next day after finishing my professional duties. I owed a duty to respect a public representative i.e. the local MLA, therefore, FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 30 of 51 personality I had forgiven the accused persons for their misdemeanor. However, I also owed a duty to protect the dignity and respect of the chair of the principal, therefore, on the next day I lodged a formal complaint with the police. My complaint in this regard Ex.PW1/A bearing my signature at point A."
69.Perusal of the aforementioned testimony of the complainant leaves on iota of doubt; in the considered opinion of this court the delay, though minimal (i.e. one day only), has been sufficiently explained by the complainant and there is no reason to doubt the testimony of the complainant on account of delay itself.
70.Proceeding further, the arguments of the defence qua non production of CCTV footage and visitor's register also need to be addressed here. It has been argued by the defence counsel that even though the complainant has admitted in her testimony that there were CCTV cameras in the school, no such footage has been placed on record and same is the case with visitor's register, which is maintained at the main gate of the school. This non production, as per the defence FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 31 of 51 counsel, is fatal defect in the case of the prosecution and thus the accused persons must be acquitted.
71.Having perused the record and having heard the arguments, this court is of the considered opinion that it is unrealistic and rather incorrect to set aside the entire case of the prosecution and to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant only on the ground that the investigating agency has not joined in the CCTV footage or a register on the entry gate. The complainant cannot be punished for omissions of the IO. Even though it has come on record that a register is maintained at the school gate however, no such register has been produced, so as to enable the court to give findings qua the same. Furthermore, in the considered opinion of the court, it is utopian to believe that amidst all the hassle, arguments, altercations in the school, it is possible for anyone to maintain a register. Not long ago, Government Schools for known for challenges of infrastructure, amenities etc., in such circumstances, it is quixotic to believe that a visitor's register is duly maintained in a Govt. School, where there is an egress and FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 32 of 51 ingress of hundreds of people on daily basis. Accordingly, in the light of the discussion, in my considered opinion the argument of the defence that absence of CCTV footage and non production of visitor's register is a fatal defect to the case of the prosecution, holds no ground.
72.Taking the discussion on allegations of hurt, as alleged u/s 332 IPC, further, it needs to be seen if the ingredients of the said section are fulfilled. An offence u/s 332 IPC is made out if hurt is caused to a public servant in discharge of his duties as a public servant. The section is reproduced hereunder for an easy reference:
"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."
73.In the matter at hand, the prosecution, in the considered opinion of this court, through the testimony of the FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 33 of 51 complainant and other material on record, has clearly proved all the ingredients of the aforementioned provision of law i.e. Section 332 IPC, the prosecution has successfully proved that the complainant was caused a hurt on her person, by the accused Asma, while the complainant was in discharge of her duties as Principal of a Government School that is to say, while acting as a public servant. Ergo, in the light of this discussion, it can be said that the prosecution has successfully proved the allegation u/s 332 IPC against accused Asma. It may be noted here that there are no allegations of hurt against accused Andul Rehman.
Assault, Sec. 353 r/w Sec. 34 IPC
74. Taking this discussion further, the individual roles of both the accused persons need to be examined qua the allegations of assault i.e., qua the charge u/s 353/34 IPC.
75. It is undoubtedly stated by the complainant that she was assaulted by the accused Asma and not by accused Abdul Rehman, however, the said accused came later to the FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 34 of 51 school with his henchmen, who were carrying lathi/wooden sticks/rods.
76. At this juncture, it is necessary to take on record section 353 IPC and in the same connection section 351 IPC as well. The same are reproduced as under :
Section 353 IPC :
"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 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."
Section 351 IPC-
"Assault.--Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault. Explanation.-- Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault."
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 35 of 51
77.Section 353 IPC requires that if assault is caused to a public servant, in discharge of his duties, with intent to deter the public servant in discharging the duties, the same is a punishable offence. Assault, as defined u/s 351 IPC, covers any gesture or a preparation which is likely to cause a person to apprehend that he, who makes the gesture or preparation, is about to use criminal force. It must also be kept in mind that mere words do not amount to an assault, however words coupled with a gesture or preparation, giving meaning to the said words, amount to an assault.
78.The necessary ingredients for offence u/s 353 IPC are as under :
1. Accused assaulted or used criminal force to a public servant;
2. Such public servant was then acting in the discharge of his duty;
3. Accused assaulted with the intention of preventing or deterring such public servant from discharging his duty, or
4. It was used in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by the said public servant.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 36 of 51
79. In the matter at hand, the testimony of the complainant divulges that accused Asma requested for an accommodation for her daughter's scooty's parking on the school campus and upon refusal by the complainant, the said accused slapped the complainant and thereafter, called her husband, co-accused Abdul Rehman to the spot. As per the testimony of the complainant, accused Abdul Rehman came to the spot with 4-5 muscle-men, who were wielding lathis/sticks/rods and he threatened the school staff that whoever comes to the rescue of the complainant, shall be decimated. The contextually relevant portion of the testimony of the complainant is reproduced hereunder:
"I noticed that a black color bullero stopped at the main gate. I also noticed that about 6 persons were sitting inside the bullero. They were wielding rods and lathis/sticks in their hands. They were shouting and threatening to open the gates. Chowkidar Ram Bhool was compelled to open the gates. 3-4 persons including accused Abdul Rehman, present today in the court and correctly identified, barged into my chamber straight away. Mr. Abdul Rehman threatened the school staff that whosoever comes to my rescue shall be decimated by him. He used vituperative epithets regarding my mother. He also threatened to abduct me and used all kind of verbal nonsense."
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 37 of 51
80. Further, in her statement recorded on 11.04.2023, she deposed as under:
"Accused Abdul Rehman abused me and my mother (gaaliyo ki bauchar shuru kardi). Main tumhe utha kar le jaunga, tumhe yaha se hatwa dunga, tumhare sath or tumhari mummy ke sath kuch bhi kar sakta hu, rape and all."
81. In the matter at hand, as per the complainant, the accused persons deterred her from discharging her duties and obstructed the course of daily business. The gesture (of accused Abdul Rehman) of entering the school, upon being called by co-accused Asma, subsequent to her causing hurt upon the person of the complainant, coupled with presence of henchmen/muscle-men who were wielding lathi/rods, and further coupled with words, as stated above, can be called an assault falling squarely within the definition of Section 351 IPC. As discussed hereinabove, the complainant was acting in the capacity of the principal of govt. school and while so acting, she was assaulted by the accused persons. The testimony of the complainant is clear, coherent and unequivocal qua the allegations of assault by the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention and thus, in the considered opinion of FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 38 of 51 this court, offence u/s 353 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC is made out against both the accused persons.
82.At this juncture, it is necessary to address the argument of the defence that there was no common intention between the accused persons, as they both came separately and had no time to pre-mediate.
83. It is settled law that common intention can form at the spur of the moment and it can even form in the course of commission of the offence. The essence of joint liability under Section 34 is the intentional joint criminal act by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The essence, thus, is simultaneous consensus of the minds of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. However, it is not necessary that the act of several persons must be same or identically similar. What is required is that these acts must be actuated by the same common intention. Reference is made to famous Indus River judgment of the Privy Council in Mahboob Shah Vs. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 118.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 39 of 51
84.In the matter at hand, both accused persons Abdul Rehman and Asma assaulted the complainant with the common intention of making her bow down to their demand of seeking parking for their daughter's scooty and make her concede to their authority, by browbeating her by way of show off force. It is in pursuance of this common intention that accused Abdul Rehman came to the school, upon being called by accused Asma and he acted in the manner as described hereinabove. Thus, squarely fulfilling the necessary pre-condition for application u/s 34 IPC.
85.Therefore, having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved allegations u/s 353/34 IPC against both the accused persons.
Criminal intimidation, Section 506.
86. Criminal intimidation is threatening a person with an injury to his person, reputation, property, with intent to cause alarm. The bare provision is reproduced hereunder for an easy reference, alongwith Section 503 IPC which is the definition of criminal intimidation.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 40 of 51 Section 506 IPC:
"Punishment for criminal intimidation.-- Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 503 IPC :
87.At this point, the charge framed against the accused persons qua Section 506 IPC, on 05.09.2012 is necessary to be taken on record. The same is as under :
"Thirdly, on aforementioned date, time and place, both of you, in furtherance of your common intention, extended threats to kill Principal Razia Begum and school staff and thereby both of you have committed offence punishable u/s 506/34 IPC."
88. Clearly, the charge framed against the accused persons pertains to Section 506 IPC para II, however, in her FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 41 of 51 testimony the complainant states that the threat extended by accused Abdul Rehman to the school staff was that they will by decimated if they come to her rescue and he further threatened the complainant with abduction. No staff member has been brought forth by the prosecution to prove the allegations of threat of death (the word used by the complainant is decimated). The complainant in her testimony on 11.04.2023 deposed that the accused Abdul Rehman threatened her that he will have her removed and can do anything with her or her mother, rape and all. The said portion of the testimony is reproduced here :
"Accused Abdul Rehman abused me and my mother (gaaliyo ki bauchar shuru kardi). Main tumhe utha kar le jaunga, tumhe yaha se hatwa dunga, tumhare sath or tumhari mummy ke sath kuch bhi kar sakta hu, rape and all."
89. A careful perusal of the testimony of the complainant and her cross examination leaves no iota of doubt qua fulfillment of all requirements/ingredients of Section 506 IPC. For the sake of brevity the contents of para nos. 51 and 52 hereinabove may be read here as well, wherein this court has held that the testimony of the complainant is worthy of belief, is coherent and consistent and lacks any FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 42 of 51 major contradictions. The prosecution has successfully established that the accused Abdul Rehman, in furtherance of his common intention with accused Asma, criminally intimidated the complainant with threats of abduction and other uncalled for consequences, including rape.
90. The threat of committing rape and abduction gets squarely covered u/s 506 para II IPC, as the punishment for abduction and rape is more than seven years. Thus in the considered opinion of this court offence u/s 506/34 (para II) IPC is clearly made out against both the accused persons.
Section 509 IPC
91. An offence under the said section is committed if any words are uttered, sounds or gestures are made, with the intention to insult the modesty of any woman. In the matter at hand, the complainant has stated that the school staff was threatened by accused Abdul Rehman and he further threatened to abduct her and said that he can do anything. The contextually relevant portion of the said testimony is reproduced hereinunder:
"Accused Abdul Rehman abused me and my mother (gaaliyo ki bauchar shuru kardi). Main tumhe utha FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 43 of 51 kar le jaunga, tumhe yaha se hatwa dunga, tumhare sath or tumhari mummy ke sath kuch bhi kar sakta hu, rape and all."
92.On the question of section 509, it must be noted that the necessary ingredients are that the accused :
1. utters a word, makes any sound or gesture or exhibits any object;
2. with the intention that it be heard, seen or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman; commits the offence.
93. The sine qua non for application of Section 509 IPC is that there must be an intention to outrage modesty of a woman. The word "modesty" has not been defined anywhere in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor in Section 354, and 509, of the IPC, 1860. In the Oxford English Dictionary one of the meanings given for the word "modesty" is "womanly propriety of behaviour". What the legislature had in mind when it used the word modesty in Sections 354 and 509, IPC was protection of an attribute which is peculiar to woman, as a virtue which attaches to a female on account of her sex.
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 44 of 51
94.Mere insult will not attract Section 509, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. For a prosecution under section 509, IPC there must be a definite allegation of insult to the modesty of woman or intrusion into the privacy of woman. Thus the allegation must involve modesty of woman or privacy of woman.
95.In Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill AIR 1996 SC 309 the Supreme Court held that:
"The ultimate test for ascertaining whether the modesty has been outraged is, in the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.' Keeping in view the total situation, the alleged act of Mr. Gill in slapping Mrs. Bajaj on her posterior, amounted to outraging her modesty for 'it was not only an affront to the normal sense of feminine decency, but also an affront to the dignity of the lady - sexual overtones or not, notwithstanding."
96. Coming back to the matter at hand, the testimony of the complainant has been discussed at length and this court has already held hereinabove that the words spoken by accused FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 45 of 51 Abdul Rehman, in furtherance of his common intention with accused Asma, constituted an offence u/s 506 (para II) IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. In the considered opinion of this court, the arguments put forth by the prosecution that the same words constitute both the offences i.e. criminal intimidation and insulting modesty i.e. an offence offence u/s 509 IPC, is misplaced. As is the mandate of the legislature, for an application of Section 509 IPC, what needs to be seen is whether the intent of the accused was to insult the modesty of the complainant. Intention needs to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case and from the contextual backdrop. There is no straight jacket formula to impute intention by words itself, rather the conduct and the back drop of the circumstances must also be seen. In the matter at hand, it appears from the testimony of the complainant that the intention of the accused was to intimidate her and the intention qua insulting the modesty does not seem to be the case. It cannot be forgotten that what appears from the facts and circumstances is that the accused Abdul Rehman answered the call of his wife and came to the office of the complainant with the intention of intimidating her. For the sake of brevity contents of para 84 FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 46 of 51 hereinabove are not being repeated here, the said discussion can be read as well. Furthermore, in the opinion of the court the same statement cannot be used as a two tooth fork to pin both the provisions of law i.e. Section 506 and 509 IPC. Accordingly, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused persons u/s 509 r/w 34 IPC.
Section 186 IPC
97.Section 186 IPC 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."
98. At this juncture, it is also necessary to take on record the legislative mandate as contained in Section 195 Cr.PC. Section 195 Cr.PC provides as under :
Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 47 of 51
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b) ....
99.A bare reading of the Section 195 Cr.PC makes it amply clear that the cognizance for the offence u/s 186 IPC cannot be taken unless there is a complaint in writing u/s 195 Cr.PC.
100. The word complaint has been defined u/s 2 (d) Cr.PC as follows :
" complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation.- A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non- cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant."
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 48 of 51
101. In the matter at hand, there is no complaint addressed to the court. It is a settled law that for the purposes of Section 195 Cr.PC a complaint addressed to an IO/Station House Officer cannot be called sufficient. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove any complaint of the complainant for the purposes of Section 195 Cr.PC and therefore, offence u/s 186 IPC cannot be successfully agitated without causing of prejudice to the right of the accused.
102. In plethora of cases the Hon'ble higher courts have set aside convictions where cognizance was taken without a formal complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC. It has been held that the said complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC is sine qua non for not only taking cognizance but also for proceeding further with the matter. In Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 1206, the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the conviction by the trial court while holding that in the absence of complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC by the public servant, the cognizance itself is wrong. Similar observations have also been made in the case of Bhagat Ram V. State of Punjab, 1991 (i) Crl.L.J. 246. In the said matter it was observed that FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 49 of 51 jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 186, IPC is barred except on a complaint in writing of the public officer concerned. Simple lodging of FIR at the Police Station which resulted in the prosecution of petitioner ultimately and framing of charge for the offences would not amount to filing of complaint in writing by public servant as stipulated under Sec.195 Cr.P.C.
Conclusion :
103. Having carefully considered the entire case, the documents placed on record, the police report, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused persons, the arguments advanced by both the sides and the provisions of law and the rule of procedure, this court holds that the prosecution has successfully proved its case, beyond reasonable doubts, against accused Asma that she caused simple hurt on the person of a public servant in discharge of her duties. The prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubts that both the accused persons i.e. Abdul Rehman and Asma, in furtherance of their common intention, criminally intimidated the complainant and FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 50 of 51 assaulted her, while she was holding the office of public servant and was in discharge of her duties as public servant, to deter her from discharging her duties. Accordingly, both the accused are hereby convicted for the offences u/s 353/506 (Para II) r/w 34 IPC and additionally, the accused Asma is hereby separately convicted for the offence U/s 332 IPC.
104. Copy of the order be given free of cost to the convicted persons.
105. Bail bonds u/s 437A Cr.P.C. shall remain in force for the statutory period.
Announced in open court
on 29.04.2023 (Harjeet Singh Jaspal)
ACMM04, RADC, New Delhi
FIR No.46/2009; PS Seelampur; Cr.C.No.4/2023 State Vs. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Page : 51 of 51