Delhi District Court
State vs Abhimanyu Anand on 10 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRAGATI
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, DELHI.
CR Cases 85523/2016
STATE v. ABHIMANYU ANAND @ SUNNY
FIR No.: 77/13
PS: ANAND VIHAR
JUDGMENT
A Case Identification 85523/2016
Number
B Name of the Ct. Sushobhit
Complainant
C Name of the accused Abhimanyu Anand @ Sunny, S/o Sh.
Bharat Anand
D Date of commission of 20.02.2013
the offences
E Date of Institution of the 11.02.2016
case
F Offences charged 186/353/332 IPC
G Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
H Date of Pronouncement 10.09.2025
of judgment
J Final Order Accused is guilty of the offence charged
under Section 186/353/332 IPC.
K State represented by Ld. APP
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Present accused namely, Abhimanyu Anand @ Sunny, S/o Bharat Anand has been produced before the court to stand trial for the offence punishable u/s FIR no. 77/13 PS : Anand Vihar State vs. Abhimanyu Anand @ Sunny Page 1 of 13 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.10 16:35:09 +0530 186/353/332 IPC.
2. Briefly stating, prosecution's case is that on 20.02.2013 at about 5:35 p.m., in front of Yamuna Sports Complex, Gate No.1, Anand Vihar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Anand Vihar, the accused voluntarily obstructed Ct. Shushobhit and HC Santosh Kumar, both public servants, in the discharge of their public duties, and he also assaulted and used criminal force to Ct. Sushobhit and thus, voluntarily caused hurt to Ct. Sushobhit, while he was discharging his official duties. A complaint was made in this regard by Ct. Sushobhit to the police and prayer was made that legal action be taken against accused Abhimanyu Anand. Accordingly, an FIR was registered. Investigation was set into motion. Accused Abhumanyu Anand was arrested and was produced before the court to face trial.
3. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court. Cognizance of the offences was taken by Ld. Predecessor judge and the accused was summoned by the court to face trial. Upon appearance of accused, copy of charge-sheet was provided to him in terms of sec. 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.07.2019, charge was framed against the accused u/s 186/353/332 IPC, to which the he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, prosecution was asked to lead its evidence. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined the following eight witnesses :
PW-1 : Ct. Sushobhit deposed that on 20.02.2013, he was posted at Vivek Vihar Traffic Circle and was on patrolling duty with HC Santosh on a motorcycle bearing no. DL-1SN-9203. Around 5:35 PM, while checking vehicles in front of Gate No.1, Yamuna Sports Complex, they noticed a white Honda Civic car bearing registration no. DL-3CBE-4316 with black film on its windows. They FIR no. 77/13 PS : Anand Vihar State vs. Abhimanyu Anand @ Sunny Page 2 of 13 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.10 16:35:33 +0530 signaled the driver to stop. The driver of the said car, i.e. the accused came at a high speed and stopped the car. That he signalled the accused to roll down the window screen but the accused came out of the car and said to the complainant "mujhe kyu roka sadak kya tumhare baap ki hai". That to this, he replied that the car windows were tinted because of which he was asked to stop. That when he asked for driver's licence then instead of producing it, the accused assaulted him with fists on his face and chest, tore his uniform shirt, and abused him vulgarily. That HC Santosh informed the Traffic Control Room, and both of them managed to apprehend the accused. Thereafter, he made a call at 100 no. whereupon ASI Jaipal and Ct. Sandeep arrived on the spot, and they handed over the accused to ASI Jai Pal who then recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. The torn uniform shirt was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/B. A site plan was prepared, the car was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/C and the accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/D. That personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/E (inadvertently mentioned as Ex. PW1/D while recording testimony of PW1). That his medical examination took place at Dr. Hedgewar Hospital. He identified the accused present before the court. Further the torn uniform Ex. PW1/P1 was also produced before the court.
PW-2 ASI Santosh Kumar deposed that on 20.02.2013, he was posted at Vivek Vihar Traffic Circle and was on duty from 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM. He alongwith Ct. Sushobhit, were patrolling on a government motorcycle bearing no. DL-1SN-9203 in the area from Surya Nagar to Surajmal Vihar. At about 5:30 PM, near Gate No.1 of Yamuna Sports Complex, they stopped a white Honda Civic car bearing no. DL-3CBE-4316. While he remained on the motorcycle, Ct. Sushobhit approached the driver's side when suddenly, the driver accused Abhimanyu began shouting and questioning why his car had been stopped. That the accused then came out, caught hold of Ct. Sushobhit's collar, assaulted him with fist blows on the face, and abused both of them. However, they overpowered FIR no. 77/13 PS : Anand Vihar State vs. Abhimanyu Anand @ Sunny Page 3 of 13 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.10 16:35:46 +0530 the accused and informed the traffic office via wireless. A PCR call was also made and local police arrived and the accused was handed over to ASI Jaipal and Ct. Sandeep. Thereafter, Ct. Sushobhit's statement was recorded, and his torn uniform was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B by the IO/ASI Jaipal. The Honda Civic car along with its keys was also seized vide memo Ex. PW1/C. That Ct. Sushobhit was sent to Hedgewar Hospital for medical examination and FIR was registered through Ct. Sandeep, who returned to the spot thereafter. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/D, personally searched vide memo Ex. PW1/E and IO prepared the site plan. The IO also recorded the his statement. He further identified the accused present before the court.
PW-3 HC Sandeep deposed that on 20.02.2013, he was posted as constable at PS Anand Vihar and accompanied IO/ASI Jaipal on receipt of DD No. 27A. They reached Gate No.1, Yamuna Sports Complex, where they met traffic police officials Ct. Sushobhit and HC Santosh who produced the accused and a white Honda Civic car bearing no. DL-3CBE-4316 before the IO. Ct. Sushobhit informed the IO that the accused had abused and scuffled with them, tearing his uniform. Thereafter IO sent Ct. Sushobhit with him for medical examination and after the medical was conducted at Hedgewar Hospital, they returned to the spot. The IO recorded statement of Ct. Sushobhit, prepared the rukka, and handed it over to him for registration of the FIR. He further got the FIR registered, returned with the copy and original rukka, and handed them to the IO. Thereafter, the IO seized the torn uniform of Ct. Sushobhit vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and also seized the Honda Civic car vide memo Ex. PW1/C. The accused was then arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/D and personally searched vide memo Ex. PW1/E wherein ₹10,250 in cash and an Apple phone were recovered. Thereafter, the IO recorded statements under Section 161 CrPC of Ct. Sushobhit and HC Santosh. Subsequently, the IO, along with the witness, the accused, and the case property, went to the police station, where the case property was deposited in the malkhana FIR no. 77/13 PS : Anand Vihar State vs. Abhimanyu Anand @ Sunny Page 4 of 13 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.10 16:35:59 +0530 The IO also recorded his statement. He also identified the accused present before the court.
PW-4 : Inspector Kumar Jiweshwar Singh deposed that on 20.02.2013, he was posted at TI Vivek Vihar as Inspector. That he handed over duty roster (Ex. PW4/A) in respect of duty of HC Santosh and Ct. Sushobhit to the IO.
PW-5 : HC Vikas had brought the Rojnamcha of Vivek Vihar Traffic Circle, regarding the departure entry of staff on 20.02.2013. Copy of the same is Ex. PW5/A. He had also brought the DD No. 11 dated 13.09.2023 in respect of missing Duty Roster dated 20.02.2013 which is Ex. PW5/B. PW-6 : Retd. SI Jaipal Sharma has reiterated the prosecution's version and averments so made by PW-3 HC Sandeep during the course of his testimony and the same is not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. However he could not recall the registration number of the car of the accused because of lapse of time. He further proved the endorsement put by him on the statement of Ct. Sushobhit as Ex. PW6/A. Apart from the documents already proved in the testimony of PW-1, he also proved the site plan Ex. PW6/B prepared by him and as such, he proved the investigation conducted by him in the case in hand.
PW-7 : Dr. S.D. Bisht deposed that he has been working at Hedgewar Hospital since 2003. He identified the signatures of Dr. Vishal and Dr. Sachin Harit on the MLC of Ct. Sushobhit (Ex. PW7/A).
PW-8 : Inspector Amit Kumar deposed that on 17.06.2015, he was posted at PS Anand Vihar as SI and further investigation of the present case was assigned to him. He received the case file from MHC(R) and obtained opinion regarding nature of injury on MLC Ex. PW7/A which was opined as simple. Thereafter, he obtained complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW8/A from concerned ACP FIR no. 77/13 PS : Anand Vihar State vs. Abhimanyu Anand @ Sunny Page 5 of 13 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.10 16:36:10 +0530 traffic. After completion of the investigation he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the court.
6. Vide separately recorded statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. on 31.07.2025, accused admitted the genuineness of sanction under Section 195 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW8/A and accordingly PW DCP Uma Shankar was dropped from the list of witnesses and further vide statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. recorded on 23.02.2023, accused admitted the genuineness of FIR, D.D. No. 27A and daily dairy register, PS Anand Vihar and Superdarinama as Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 respectively, and accordingly HC Vimal Kumar and Ms. Roopa Anand were dropped from the list of witnesses.
7. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and separate statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he stated that he is innocent and is being falsely implicated in the present case. The accused did not wish to lead defence evidence.
8. Final arguments advanced by Ld. APP for state and Ld. Defence counsel heard. Case file perused carefully.
9. Ld. APP for state has argued that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. That on a combined reading of testimonies of prosecution witnesses, offences under section U/s 186/332/353 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
10. Per contra Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that in the case in hand the incident is alleged to have occurred at 05:35pm but the FIR Ex. A1 was registered at 07:30pm, thus, there is a delay in registration of FIR. Further, that as per the FIR, the information regarding occurrence of incident was received in the PS at 07:55pm whereas the IO/PW-6 had deposed that he had completed the entire FIR no. 77/13 PS : Anand Vihar State vs. Abhimanyu Anand @ Sunny Page 6 of 13 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.10 16:36:20 +0530 investigation by 08:00pm which means that the IO had completed the investigation within 05 minutes of receipt of the information. That the duty roster Ex. PW4/A cannot be relied upon since the same is not supported with certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act and that both Ct. Sushobhit and HC Santosh did not have patrolling and challaning duty on the said date. That, moreover, all the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the IO on 20.02.2013 itself and as per the prosecution witnesses, they were on the spot till 10:00pm. Further as per the testimony of PW-1, he did not go to the PS on 20.02.2013 or thereafter ; that even the site plan is not signed by PW-1. Thus, it proves that the entire proceedings were conducted by the IO in the PS in a mechanical manner. It is further contended that it is not specified in the chargesheet as to when was the torn uniform of PW-1 was seized by the IO.
Further, that no CCTV footage or photographs of the incident have been led into evidence by the prosecution nor any independent public witness has been examined. That even in the site plan, the mark of occurrence of incident is shown on the opposite side instead of showing on the road going from Ashoka Niketan towards sports complex. Further, that no record has been produced before the court as to how many challans were issued by PW-1 and PW-2 on the date of incident or to show that the car of the accused had black windows. Further, that the complaint Ex. PW8/A was also granted in a mechanical manner since it says that the accused was arrested and was sent to JC but in fact he was granted bail. Moreover, in the complaint, the time of occurrence of the incident is stated to be different. That similarly, in the arrest memo of accused arrest is stated to have been made under Section 177/146/196 of Motor Vehicle Act also, but the FIR and chargesheet has not been filed under these provisions. As such, it has been prayed that the accused may be acquitted for the offences for which he has been charged.
11. In order to bring home the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under section 186, 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, it becomes FIR no. 77/13 PS : Anand Vihar State vs. Abhimanyu Anand @ Sunny Page 7 of 13 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.10 16:36:32 +0530 relevant to reproduce the said sections as under:
Section 186. 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.
Section 332. 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.
Section 353. 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.
12. In the case in hand, the fact that Ct. Sushobhit and HC Santosh are employees of Delhi Police and thus, are public servants is duly proved from the complaint Ex. PW8/A made under 195 Cr.P.C. by the then ACP (Traffic) Uma Shankar. Moreover, this fact is not disputed by the accused as well. Further, the fact that on 20.02.2013 both Ct. Sushobhit and HC Santosh were posted in Vivek Vihar Traffic Circle and were on duty is also proved by the prosecution since it has led into evidence the duty roster Ex. PW4/A as per which both the aforesaid police officials were assigned motorcycle patrolling duty in second shift from 03:00pm to 11:00pm from Surya Nagar to Surajmal Vihar. Prosecution has further led into evidence the DD entry dated 20.02.2013 (Ex. PW5/A) perusal FIR no. 77/13 PS : Anand Vihar State vs. Abhimanyu Anand @ Sunny Page 8 of 13 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.10 16:36:43 +0530 whereof reveals that vide the same the entire staff had departed for their duty as per duty roster Ex. PW4/A. Further, perusal of the duty roster Ex. PW4/A reveals that the same bears the signature of PW-4 Inspector Kumar Jiweshwar Singh, who had prepared the same and the same has been produced in original before the court. This court is of the view that merely because the said duty roster was prepared in a computer and then its printout was obtained would not require a certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act in its support because after obtaining the said print it was signed by PW-4 and has been led into evidence in original before the court and has been duly proved by PW-4. Thus, there is no reason for this court to discard the duty roster Ex. PW4/A or to say that Ct. Sushobhit and HC Santosh did not have patrolling and cahllaning duty on the said date, time and place. Thus, as far as the fact that PW-1 and PW-2 are public servants and were present on the spot for discharging official duty is concerned then this court is of the view that prosecution has duly proved the same.
13. In respect of the alleged altercation of accused with both the aforesaid police officials and giving beatings by the accused to Ct. Sushobhit, it has been duly deposed by both the aforesaid witnesses, i.e., PW-1 and PW-2, respectively, that on 20.02.2013 while they were on patrolling duty, then at about 05:35pm, accused came in his car bearing no. DL-3CBE-4316 and because all the window glasses of the said car were covered with black film, therefore, it was signalled to stop whereupon the accused came driving his aforesaid car at a high speed in front of PW-1 and stopped there. Further, upon signalling by PW-1 to roll down the window of the said car, accused rather came out from his car and said to PW-1 that "mujhe kyu roka sadak tumhare baap ki hai" . They have further deposed that when PW-1 asked the accused to produce his driving licence then instead of the same, accused rather gave beatings with fists to PW-1 on his face and chest and he further tore the uniform of PW-1. Nothing contradictory has appeared in their cross-examination regarding the occurrence of the said incident. Further, PW-1 FIR no. 77/13 PS : Anand Vihar State vs. Abhimanyu Anand @ Sunny Page 9 of 13 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.10 16:36:53 +0530 has also deposed that he was got medically examined after the incident. Perusal of the MLC Ex. PW7/A reveals that the same was conducted on 20.02.2013 at about 07:26pm and the history alleged by Ct. Sushobhit/injured was of assault. Further, as per the said MLC, simple injuries were found to have been sustained by PW-1. This MLC has been duly proved by PW-7 Dr. S.D. Bisht who has identified the signatures of Dr. Vishal and Dr. Sachin Harit upon the MLC, who had prepared the same after medically examining PW-1. Nothing has come on record to suggest that the MLC Ex. PW7/A was prepared without observing any such injury as reflected therein. Thus, this court is of the view that the MLC (Ex. PW7/A) corroborates the version of PW1 regarding assault and injuries suffered by him.
14. Further, both PW-1 and PW-2 have categorically deposed that the incident occurred at about 05:35pm when the accused was asked to stop his car. Prosecution has also led into evidence DD No. 27A Ex. A1 as per which an information vide PCR call regarding an altercation with traffic staff on the issue of black car windows near gate no.3, Surajmal Vihar, was received at about 05:50pm. Thus, it is evident that the incident was reported immediately after its occurrence. Moreover, both the witnesses have remained consistent in their testimony regarding the date, time and manner of occurrence of the incident. Further, perusal of the FIR Ex. A1 reveals that the same was registered at about 07:55pm on the same date, i.e., 20.02.2013. Thus, this court is of the view that there is no inordinate delay in registration of FIR in this case.
15. Further, even though it is not mentioned in the chargesheet that the torn uniform of PW-1 was seized by the IO, but the seizure memo Ex. PW1/B in respect of the same has been produced before the court and has been duly proved by PW-1 as well as the IO/PW-6. Further, PW-1 and PW-2 have duly deposed that the accused had torn the uniform of PW-1 during the said altercation. The said uniform Ex. PW1/P1 has also been produced before the court. Moreover, no FIR no. 77/13 PS : Anand Vihar State vs. Abhimanyu Anand @ Sunny Page 10 of 13 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.10 16:37:04 +0530 dispute has been raised by the accused in respect of the identity of the said uniform or that the same was not in a torn condition. Further, presence of accused on the spot and the fact that he was driving a Honda Civic car which had black windows is also not disputed by the accused and no reason has been put forth by the accused as to why would PW-1 and PW-2 would falsely implicate him in the case in hand. Therefore, this court is of the view that merely because no challan was issued by PW-1 and PW-2 in respect of black windows of car of accused does not weaken the case of the prosecution. As far as non-examination of any independent witness or non filing of any CCTV footage of the incident is concerned, then it has been observed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat vs. Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagribhai and ors. 1990 CrLJ 2531.
"For appreciating the evidence of the injured witnesses the Court should bear in mind that:
(1) Their presence at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted.
(2) They do not have any reason to omit the real culprits and implicate falsely the accused persons.
(3) The evidence of the injured witnesses is of great value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted merely on some supposed natural conduct of a person during the incident or after the incident because it is difficult to imagine how a witness would act or react to a particular incident. His action depends upon number of imponderable aspects.
(4) If there is any exaggeration in their evidence, then the exaggeration is to be discarded and not their entire evidence.
(5) While appreciating their evidence the Court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies, but must consider broad spectrum of the prosecution version. The discrepancies may be due to normal errors of perception or observation or due to lapse of memory or due to faulty or stereotype investigation.
(6) It should be remembered that there is a tendency amongst the truthful witnesses also to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. In this type of situation the best course for the Court would be to discard exaggerated version or falsehood FIR no. 77/13 PS : Anand Vihar State vs. Abhimanyu Anand @ Sunny Page 11 of 13 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.10 16:37:15 +0530 but not to discard entire version. Further, when a doubt arises in respect of certain facts stated by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story."
16. Now in the light of the above judgment, it is clear that the testimony of the injured witness of the offence stands on a very higher footing unless and until impeached by some clinching evidence. I have perused the evidences of the witnesses and I find that the same are quite consistent, truthful and creditworthy. The injured withstood the cross examination and there is nothing in it which can impeach his credit or discard his testimony or to doubt their veracity. He has deposed about the manner in which the incident occurred. PW 1 is the injured in the present case and is the best witness to describe the manner in which the offence is committed by the accused. Being the injured he would be most keen to ensure that the real culprit does not go scot free and there is no reason that he would frame innocent persons sparing their real assailant.
17. As regards to the contention that the IO had completed the investigation within 05 minutes, that the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded on the same date, that all the prosecution witnesses were on the spot till 10:00pm, that the complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW1/A) mentions that the accused was sent to judicial custody whereas he was granted bail, this court is of the view that the same are not material discrepancies so as to discard the prosecution version. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 7 SCC 278 that :
"The settled position of law is that the prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing evidence. Hence, if the prosecution in a given case adduces evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court cannot acquit the accused on the ground that there are some defects in FIR no. 77/13 PS : Anand Vihar State vs. Abhimanyu Anand @ Sunny Page 12 of 13 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.10 16:37:25 +0530 the investigation, but if the defects in the investigation are such as to cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, then of course the accused is entitled to acquittal because of such doubt."
18. As discusssed hereinabove, no major contradiction have appeared in the testimonies of prosecution witnesess in the case in hand. Therefore, this court is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of all the reasonable doubts. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused Abhimanyu Anand is hereby held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 186/353/332 IPC and is convicted thereunder.
Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date: PRAGATI 2025.09.10 16:37:35 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (PRAGATI) on dated 10th September, 2025 ACJM/SHAHDARA DISTRICT/ KARKARDOOMA COURTS/ DELHI/10.09.2025
Present judgment consists of 12 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date:PRAGATI 2025.09.10 16:37:45 +0530 (PRAGATI) ACJM/SHAHDARA DISTRICT/ KARKARDOOMA COURTS/ DELHI/10.09.2025 FIR no. 77/13 PS : Anand Vihar State vs. Abhimanyu Anand @ Sunny Page 13 of 13