Delhi District Court
State vs Masood Paracha on 28 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHENDRA :
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT: PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: DELHI
FIR NO.: 379/00
POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT
U/S: 186/332/353 IPC
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE VS MASOOD PARACHA
S/o Sh. Siraj Paracha
R/o H. No. 2148, Kucha Dakhani Rai, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi.
Date of institution: 17.11.2008
Date of reserving Judgement/Order: 17.02.2014
Date of Pronouncement of Judgement/Order: 28.02.2014
Brief statement of reasons for such decision :
1.The present case was registered on a complaint lodged by Air Customs Superintendent 'C' Shift IGI Airport, New Delhi wherein he alleged that on 6.10.00 at 5.30 PM he was doing his official work with the help of Sh. Anil Kumar( ACO) and Balbinder Singh( ACO), one FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 1 of 24 person namely Masood Paracha was roaming in the arrival hall and came to his counter; he started uttering abusive language "Customwalo Kee to mai Maa Chod Dunga, Yeh Bare Bhan Chod Hai"
and when he resisted the same, he started hitting him and also threatened to teach him a lesson and kill him; he also tore his uniform and ran towards the exist gate to escape from the arrival hall. The complainant and customs staff on duty ran after him to catch hold of him. He was overpowered at the exist gate by the security persons on duty and custom staff. The complainant further stated that in this incident he received injury on his left arms and other parts of his body.
2. After investigations, charge sheet U/s. 186/332/353/506 IPC in the matter was filed. As per the chargesheet, on 6.01.00 at 5.30 PM, accused obstructed complainant Narinder Kumar, Customs Superintendent, Anil Kumar A.C.O. and Balbir Singh, A.C.O. while discharging their official duties; he assaulted or used criminal force and caused injuries to Air Customs Superintendent Sh. Narinder Kumar, a public servant in execution of his official duties as public servant with intent to prevent and deter him from discharging his duties as public servant, and criminally intimidated the complainant by threatening to kill him.
3. After supply of copies, a charge for the offences U/s.
FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 2 of 24
186/353/332/506 IPC was settled separately against the accused on 06.09.2002 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses to prove its case. The accused examined himself under Section 315 Cr. P.C in support of his case.
(i). PW1 is the complainant who deposed on the same lines as in his complaint. He duly proved his complaint Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that he was medically examined at Safdurjung hospital. The police seized his Vest and shirt including his uniform vide memo Ex.PW1/B and the same was sealed with the seal of R.K. to which he identified as Ex.P1. He correctly identified the accused.
The witness was not crossexamined by accused.
(ii). PW2 is Subhash Sharma who deposed that in the year 2000 he was working at Coco Cola Counter at IGI Airport and on that day one person was wandering in the customs area. He was stopped by custom officer upon this he torn the uniform of custom officer Sh. Narinder Kumar. He proved seizure memo of uniform as Ex.PW2/A and correctly identified the case property as Ex.P1.
During his crossexamination, he failed to identify the accused. He admitted that custom officials had also beaten accused FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 3 of 24 Masood Parcha and also admitted that no public persons were joined in the investigation or called by the police officials. He also admitted as correct that the accused was saying that he has been beaten up by custom officials.
(iii). PW3 is Sh. Anil Kumar who deposed that on 6.10.00 at about 5.30 PM, accused came at counter No. 3 and Mr. Narender Kumar, Superintendent and Balvinder Singh, ACO were also working with him at that counter. The accused was wandering in the custom area and he was stopped by the custom officials. Suddenly, accused started abusing those customs officials particularly Narender Kumar and caught hold of his collar, assaulted him and also torn his uniform. He has deposed that accused ran way from the spot and after sometime local police came. The local police prepared site plan and seized the uniform of complainant. He duly proved seizure memo of uniform as Ex.PW1/B. He correctly identified the accused as well as uniform, the uniform was exhibited as P1.
In his crossexamination, he admitted that in the custom area, every moment is being recorded through CCTV Cameras installed there. The person whose goods are detained by the custom officials , can enter the custom area to make inquiry about their goods. He cannot say that the goods of the accused were detained on 16.09.2000 and due to this reason he came to Custom area. He does not know FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 4 of 24 whether there is any case pending regarding the theft in the present court against complainant Narender and Mukesh Kumar Solanki as they had stolen two Motorola Mobiles of the accused from his baggage on 16.9.2000. He does not remember if he was on duty with Mukesh and Narendar on 16.9.2000. He denied the suggestion that Narender himself had torn his uniform and removed the strip from his shirt.
(iv). PW4 Sh. J.K. Sharma, Insp. ACO Custom deposed that on 6.10.2000, he was working at Counter No. 3 at Arrival Hall at custom department. The accused came around at 5.30 pm and started abusing the custom officers as a whole. The accused reached at counter of Sh. Narinder Kumar and caught hold of his collar and started beating him. He has further deposed that thereafter accused ran away from the spot. Then police was called and his statement was recorded.
In his crossexamination, he stated that he is not aware that accused had come to India from Dubai three day prior to the date of incident and declared his dutiable items. He is also not aware that on that day the accused noticed that complainant was searching through his open baggage and thereafter found his two mobile phone missing. Thereafter, the FIR was registered against the complainant on complaint of accused. He denied the suggestion that on the day of incident, the accused had gone to IGI Airport to collect his baggage but was surrounded by complainant and his associates . They threatened FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 5 of 24 to teach him a lesson because he dared to file complaint against complainant for theft of his mobile phones. The accused ran to save himself but was stopped by policemen at staff gate where the accused was beaten up by custom officials. He further denied the suggestion that he is falsely deposing in favour of complainant being his colleague.
(v). PW5 is Ct. Kulbir Singh who deposed that on 06.10.2000, duty officer entrusted him DD No. 15A and he took the said DD and accused to the spot where IO made interrogation from accused. He deposed that IO filled the Naksha Majrudi and he alongwith Ct. Chander Pal took the accused and injured for their medical examination at Safdurjung Hospital and got the MLC prepared. Then they handed over the accused as well as injured to the IO after medical examination.
In his crossexamination, he stated that the clothes of accused were also torn. He denied the suggestion the first complaint was given by accused against the custom officials for beating him.
(vi). PW6 is HC Ram Sultan who deposed that on 06.10.00 he was on duty at arrival staff entry gate and at about 5.45 PM, accused came from the side of customs area. Custom staff was chasing him with alarm "Pakdo Pakdo" and accused was apprehended by them them with the help of customs officials. He deposed that SI Prem Chand was FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 6 of 24 also on duty with him. He further deposed that he saw the torn uniform of Superintendent Narinder Kumar.
In his crossexamination, he stated the the place where he was posted, only the gate of custom area is visible and nothing inside the custom area could be seen. So, he cannot say what happened inside the custom gate. He denied the suggestion that the accused was beaten by custom officials and he was crying for help and he did not save him. He denied the suggestion that the shirt of accused was torn by custom officials and he did not pay heed to the request of the accused to take him to Police Station for registration of case against custom officials.
(vii). PW7 SI Rajinder Kumar is IO of the case who deposed that on 06.10.00 on receiving DD entry No. 12A, he alongwith Ct. Chander Bhan reached at spot where they found the accused, complainant Narinder Kumar besides other eye witnesses. The complainant gave complaint Ex.PW1/A and got the case registered and obtained the copy of FIR and original complaint from duty officer. He has deposed that he sent accused and complainant for medical examination with Ct. Chander Bhan and Ct. Kulbeer Singh respectively. He prepared site plan Ex.PW7/A and the seized the uniform of complainant vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He duly proved the arrest memo of accused as Ex.PW7/B, personal search as Ex.PW2/A. He obtained sanction of Sec. 195 FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 7 of 24 Cr.PC. and after completion of investigation put up the charge sheet.
In his crossexamination, he stated the video recording of the custom area and of counter no 3 where the complainant was posted or where the incident occurred was available but he did not collect the same. He admitted that there is no signature of accused on the seizure memo but added that he refused to sign the same. He admitted that the first call to PCR was made by the accused that he is being beaten by custom officer i.e the complainant and first MLC was of accused. The complaint of the accused was marked to some other police officer and he does not anything about the same. He did not observe that the clothes of accused were in torn condition when he was handed over to him.
(viii). PW8 HC Gajraj is the duty officer who recorded the formal FIR on complaint Ex.PW1/A given by IO. He proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW8/A.He denied the suggestion of registering false FIR.
(ix). PW9 is Sh. T.R. Prabhakar who deposed that on 06.10.00 he was posted at arrival hall, IGI Airport Customs Counter as Superintendent. At about 5.00 PM, he along with other custom officials noticed that the accused was abusing, making obscene postures and using unparliamentary language against Mr. Narender Kumar. The accused quarreled with complainant and torn his uniform and thereafter FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 8 of 24 he ran towards the exit gate. He correctly identified the accused in the court.
In his crossexamination, he stated that he does not know Narender or Mukesh Kumar Solanki. The distance between his counter and the spot was around 10 meters. He admitted that he did not hear all the words used at Narendar's counter. He does not remember as to how many passengers were there at the arrival hall or at his counter at the time of incident. He after the incident came back to his counter. He denied the suggestion that the custom officer Narendar and Anil kumar beaten the accused on the day of incident when he went to demand his seized goods which were seized on 14.09.2000.
(x). PW10 is Ct. Subhash who joined the investigation with the IO/SI Rajinder Kumar on 06.10.00. He deposed that they reached at exit gate of arrival terminal of IGI Airport where IO recorded statement of SI Prem Chand and HC Ram Sultan Singh, ACO Balwinder Singh and complainant Narinder Kumar. He deposed that complainant produced his torn uniform and same was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/B. He duly proved the arrest memo Ex.PW7/B, personal search memo Ex.PW2/A. He correctly identified the accused as well as torn uniform Ex.P1.
In his crossexamination, he stated that case property shown to him is a common uniform of custom official and there is no distinctive FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 9 of 24 mark/feature on case property to show that it was uniform of complainant.
(xi). PW11 S.S. Rawat is the MRT Safdurjung Hospital who proved MLC bearing No 150849 and 150828, both dated 06.10.2000 of complainant Narendar Kumar prepared by Dr. Abhimanyu Lal and of accused Masood Paracha prepared by Dr. Rishab Sharma as EX. PW 11/A and EX. PW 11/B respectivel. He also proved Xray report Ex.PW11/C of complainant Narinder Kumar, prepared by Dr. Vandana. He stated he can identify the handwriting and signatures of all the three doctors as per records and they had also left the services of hospital without disclosing their present whereabouts.
In his crossexamination, he admitted that as per the MLC's on record, the patient Masood Paracha was examined at 7.15 p.m and Narendar at 8 p.m
(xii). PW12 is Rajinder Kumar who deposed that in the year 2000 he was assigned the duty to check the passengers at arrival/departure hall. He has deposed that in the year 19992000 one incident had taken place between Narinder Kumar and a passenger but he doesn't know what was the matter. He cannot recognize the passenger. The witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP with the permission of court. However, during his crossexamination nothing material could be elicited out from FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 10 of 24 him.
(xiii). PW13 is Balvinder Singh who also turned hostile. He deposed that in the year 2000 he was posted at counter No.5 and he was assigned duty of clearance of luggage of the passenger. However no incident took place in his presence. The witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP with the permission of court. He denied in toto making any statement to police. During crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that the counters wher he and other custome officials were sitting , were not in the coverage of CCTV cameras installed at the airport. CCTV are only installed at the entry and exit gates of arrival of airport.
(xiv). PW14 is Insp. Prem Chand who deposed that on 06.10.2000 he was working at shift security NITC at arrival shift entry gate alongwith HC Ram Sultant Singh and saw one person running and custom officials were chasing him with alarm "Pakro Pakro". He has deposed that they apprehended that person whose name was revealed as Masood Parcha. Then complainant came there and he saw his uniform torn from the side of shoulder and pocket. He initially was unable to identify the accused due to lapse of time but later correctly identified him. He also identified the torn uniform of complainant as Ex.P1.
In his crossexamination, he stated that he had not seen what FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 11 of 24 transpired inside as it was not visible from where he was standing. He denied the suggestion that custom officials beaten the accused in his presence but he did not come to his rescue. He denied the suggestion that custom officer Narendar torn his shirt himself.
(xv). PW15 is Ct. Chander Bhan who deposed that on 06.10.00, duty officer handed over him DD to hand over it to IO/SI Randhir. The accused and complainant had invisible injuries and the accused was taken by him and injured was taken by Ct. Kulbir Singh for medical examination at Safdurjung Hospital and after medical examination they came back at the spot. He was not crossexamined by prosecution.
5. No other PW was examined by the prosecution and the PE was closed and the matter was fixed for statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. PC.
6. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded separately and all the incriminating material coming on record was put to him. He stated that prior to this incident, complainant, Anil Kumar and Mukesh Kumar Solenki had stolen his two mobile phones from his luggage and he lodged a complaint against them but no action was taken against them. The uniform of complainant was torn by Anil Kumar in the police station in his presence just to falsely implicate him. He was beaten up FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 12 of 24 by the custom officials on the day of incident. Firstly, he was taken to hospital for medical examination and after about 1 - 1 ½ hours complainant/injured was taken to hospital for medical examination and entire proceedings were conducted at police station. He stated that he has been falsely implicated.
7. The accused during his evidence under Section 315 Cr. P.C stated that on 14.09.2000 he had returned from Dubai by Air India Flight at IGI Airport, New Delhi. He went through red channel to declare his goods where two custom officers namely Narinder Kumar and Mukesh Kumar Solanki examined his luggage and assess the duty of Rs. 15,000/. They fill the duty receipt number 3478 and gave it to him alongwith two photocopies of the same to deposit at counter number 3 or 4. The photocopy of the said receipt is mark A bearing his signatures at point B. He went to the counter to deposit the duty but found them closed. When he came back he saw that above named, two custom officers were stealing his two mobile phones of Motorolla Make. When he raised the objection, they snatched original duty receipt. He made complaint to Higher Custom official but no action was taken. Then he made complaint to SHO IGI Airport on 14.09.2000 itself which is Ex. DW1/A. He also made complaint to DCP vide complaint dt. 14.09.2000, the photocopy of the same is Mark B. The certified copy of the same is Ex. DW1/B. However, the police registered no FIR on his FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 13 of 24 complaint, so he filed a complaint U/sec. 156 (3) Cr. PC before Ld. ACMM Sh. V. K. Maheshwari, Patiala House, New Delhi, copy of same is Ex. DW1/C bearing his signatures at point C1. On the said complaint, the court issued directions to register an FIR and accordingly, FIR was registered.
On 06.10.2000, the complainant Narender alongwith other Custom Staff beaten him and he made complaint to police Ex. DW1/D. He was also examined in the hospital either in Safdarjung Hospital or AIIMS. The police again registered no FIR on his complaint. Then he again made a complaint before the Court Ex. DW1/E and the directions were issued U/sec. 156 (3) Cr. PC for registration of the case. The copy of FIR is Ex. DW1/F. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as he lodged complaint against them to pressurize him.
In the cross examination by Ld. APP, the accused after going through the record and complaint Ex. DW1/A to DW1/E admitted that the name of Narender has not mentioned anywhere. He admitted that even in complaint Ex. DW1/X1, name of Custom official had not been mentioned. He again stated that it bears name of Mukesh Kumar Solanki. He admitted that his complaint dt. 14.09.2000 was received by DCP Office on 15.09.2000. He denied the suggestion that he had not written complaint on 14.09.2000 and had written the same on 15.09.2000 which was received by DCP office on 15.09.2000. He FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 14 of 24 further stated in his cross examination that he had not deposited the Custom Duty and due to this reason, he has not mentioned the date of depositing the same in any of the complaints. He also stated that he had lodged the complaint to SHO on the same day i.e. 06.10.2000 during in evening after about 56 pm. He admitted that on said complaint DW1/D, the date and time of receipt by PS IGI Airport has been mentioned as 07.10.2000 at 01.45 pm. He has not mentioned in the complaint Ex. DW1/D that he had made a call to PCR. On 06.10.2000, he did not make any call to the PCR. The question was put to the accused that in complaint Ex. DW1/D he stated that one SI Rakesh gave you the mobile and you made call to PCR but then he snatched the mobile and today you have stated that you did not make any call to PCR, so which version is correct. The accused replied that whatever he stated in complaint Ex. DW1/E is correct. He admitted that in the complaints Ex. DW1/A to DW1/C and Ex. DW1/X1 except Mukesh Kumar Solanki, the name of other custom officials and their description has not been mentioned. He denied the suggestion that Mukesh Kumar Solanki has nothing to do with the present case. He admitted that he is not the prosecution witness in the present case.
He denied the suggestion that incident dated 14.09.2000 has no concern with the present incident i.e. 06.10.2000 and he is deliberately connecting the incident of 14.09.2000 with present incident to take benefit and to save himself. He denied the suggestion that he is FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 15 of 24 habitual in evading the Custom Duty and when he is caught, he levels the false allegations against the Custom Officers in order to pressurize them and take benefit in the cases lodged against him by the custom officials.
8. The Ld. APP has argued that prosecution has succored in bringing home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand , Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that there are material contradictions in the evidence of public witnesses examined by prosecution and their testimony is not reliable and trustworthy. The accused has also established the motive of false implication of accused by the complainant. So, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and may be acquitted.
9. I have carefully considered rival final arguments and perused the record.
Material Contradiction in evidence of public eyewitnesses.
10. The prosecution has examined the complainant as PW1, and 6 Public witnesses as PW2 to PW4, PW9, PW12 and PW13 as eyewitnesses to prove its case. PW12 and 13 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW2 supported the case of prosecution as to the incident but has failed to identify the accused in the court. The FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 16 of 24 complainant and other public witnesses have supported the prosecution in their testimonies. However, the consistency is lacking in the deposition of complainant and other public witnesses (PW3 to 4 and PW9). The complainant as PW1 deposed that he was posted on the day of incident at counter no. 3 in arrival hall alongwith PW3 and PW13. The accused was roaming in the arrival hall and was abusing the custom official. When he asked him not to abuse the department, he was beaten up by the accused and he threatened to kill him. The accused also torn his uniform and tried to escape. Wherever PW3 stated that accused was simply wandering in the custom area and has not stated that he was abusing the custom department as stated by PW1. PW3 further stated that when the accused was stopped by Custom officials from roaming in the custom area then he started abusing those Custom officials particularly Narender Kumar. He assaulted Narender Kumar and torn his uniform. So, in contradiction to the testimony of PW1, he stated that accused was stopped not only by complainant Narender but also by other custom officials and then he started abusing custom officials and assaulted Narender Kumar. The PW4 came up with entirely different version. He stated that the accused was abusing the custom officers as a whole. The accused himself reached at the counter of complainant. After catching the complainant by his collar, he started beating him. PW9 again narrated the incident in his deposition in contradiction to what was stated by FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 17 of 24 other public witnesses. He stated that the accused was abusing, making obscene postures and using unparliamentary language only against Mr. Narender Kumar (complainant). The accused quarreled with complainant and torn his uniform. So, the complainant and public witnesses have not deposed consistently regarding the incident in question and the contradictions in their testimony make their testimonies doubtful.
11. Most importantly, there is also the contradiction in the version set out by the complainant PW1 in his complaint Ex. PW1/A on the basis of which the present case was registered, and his evidence. In his complaint, he stated that on the day of incident, the accused came to his counter and abused him. On his resistance, he started beating him and also torn his uniform. He also threatened to kill him. However, in his testimony as stated above he never deposed that accused came to his counter and used abusive language. Instead he stated that he went to the accused and stopped him from uttering derogatory language against the Custom officials. After which the quarrel ensued and the accused beaten him and also threatened to kill him after tearing his uniform.
Motive of false implication/Previous Enmity
12. It is case of defence that accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant as he made complaint with the police against FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 18 of 24 complainant, Narendar, and Mukesh Kumar Solanki for stealing his two mobile phones on 14.09.2000. However, in none of complaints ( Ex. DW1/A, Ex. DW1/B, Ex. DW1/C, Ex. DW1/D, DW1/E and DW1/X1) made by accused to different authorities, the accused has named the complainant and he has simply accused Custom officials at the counter for stealing his mobile phones. The name of Mukesh Kumar Solanki has been mentioned only in one complaint i e. DW1/X1 but Mukesh Kumar Solanki is not witness in the present case. It is also noteworthy that in a complaint case pending in this court filed by accused in respect of incident dated 14.9.2000, the accused has not named complainant as the person who stole his mobile phones on 14.9.2000 in his presummoning evidence recorded on 26.11.2008 and only named Mukesh Kumar Solanki. So, it is clear that accused has coined the defence of previous enmity with complainant as an afterthought and has failed to prove any motive of false implication of accused by complainant.
Falsus in uno and falsus in omnibus
13. The doctrine falsus in uno and falsus in omnibus has no applicability in India.
The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a deadstop.
FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 19 of 24
Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab s/o Beli Nayata and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972(3) SCC 751 and Ugar Ahir and Ors. v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277.
14. In the present case, the complainant(PW1) and public witnesses(PW2 to 4 and PW9) consistently deposed that on 6.10.2000, the accused Masood Parcha manhandled and beaten the complainant. However,the testimony of P W6 and PW 14 is not of much help to the prosecution as they were not eyewitnesses to what happened inside the arrival hall and only seen custom officials chasing the accused. In his defence, the accused has stated that in fact, he was beaten up by the complainant and custom officials near the custom gate in the presence of police officials. The police officials did not come to his rescue and allowed the complainant and custom officials to beat him in FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 20 of 24 their presence. However, the accused miserably failed to explain how the injuries were received by complainant. If defence of accused is believed then there was no occasion for accused to inflict injuries on the complainant. So, the defence of accused is an afterthought and is not believable. There is nothing on record to doubt the testimony of complainant and public witnesses (PW2 to 4 and PW9) that the accused assaulted complainant and manhandled him as a result of which he was injured.
Whether the prosecution is able to establish the ingredients of offence 186 IPC,353 IPC and 332 IPC
15. The accused is facing trial for section 186 IPC, 353 IPC and 332 IPC besides Section 506 IPC. Section 186 IPC provides punishment for obstructing public servant in discharge of his public functions. Section 353 IPC provide punishment for using assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. Lastly section 332 IPC deals with voluntarily causing simple injury to public servant in discharge of his public functions. The common thread running between section 186 IPC, 353 IPC and 332 IPC is that the offence should have been committed against public official when the official was discharging his official duties as a public servant. So, it is necessary for the FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 21 of 24 prosecution to establish that the complainant was discharging his official duties as a public servant when the accused committed offences with which he is charged in the present case. The testimony of complainant nowhere reflects that he was obstructed or criminal force was used against him which caused injury to him while he was discharging his duties as a public servant. In his testimony, he stated that he approached the accused when he found him abusing the custom officials in general. He has not stated that the act of the accused in any way created any obstruction while he was working at his counter and discharging his public duty. Mere utterance of the abusive word or conduct of the accused which might have caused some inconvenience or annoyance to the public servant does not itself constitute obstruction. So, the prosecution has failed to establish that complainant was discharging public function when the accused assaulted him. Hence, accused is acquitted for offence under Section 186 IPC, 353 IPC and 332 IPC However it is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that accused assaulted the complainant as a result of which he received simple injury as duly proved by MLC and XRay Report of complainant as Ex. 11/B and Ex/ 11/C respectively. Hence accused stands convicted for the offences U/sec. 323 IPC.
FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 22 of 24
Whether the prosecution is able to establish the ingredients of offence under Section 506 IPC Now coming to the allegations u/s 506 IPC, in order to attract the ingredients of S. 506, I. P. C. the intention of the accused must be to cause alarm to the victim. To constitute an offence under S. 506, I. P. C. it must be shown that the person charged actually threatened another with injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with the intention to cause alarm. Threatening is always coupled with a condition which the victim is compelled to meet. The 'fear' so induced by the culprit on the person of the victim operates as the 'threat'. The threat therefore is not a 'lone' entity but a sequence culminating into a compulsion thus leaving the victim with no choice but to comply. Whether or not the victim actually complies, the offense is completed the moment 'alarm' is set. But in order to have the 'threat' completed and the 'alarm' so set the essential link is between the 'fear' and the 'condition' to be met. If the said link is not established a 'threat' remains hollow as the culprit could always say that there was no reason for him to threat.
In the present case the injury received by the complainant is of FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 23 of 24 simple nature and no weapon has been used and as such no alarm is raised in the mind of the complainant which is a necessary ingredient for establishing an offence u/s 506 IPC, the accused deserves to be acquitted for an offence under Section 506 IPC.
Let accused be heard on sentence for offence Under Section 323 IPC on 10.03.2014.
Announced in the open
Court on 28th February, 2014 PRIYA MAHENDRA
ACMM01/New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
This judgment contains 24 pages and each paper is signed by me.
FIR NO. 379/00 PS IGI Airport U/sec. 186/353/332/506 IPC 24 of 24