Delhi District Court
State vs . Bupender on 9 September, 2009
FIR No. 222/00
P.S. Bawana
Page no.1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA,
METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 222/2000
U/s. 353/186/332 IPC
PS: Bawana
State vs. Bupender
Date of Institution of case:- 25.8.00
Date of Judgment reserved:- 9.9.09
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 9.9.09
JUDGMENT
Sl. No of Case : 1308/2
Date of commission of offence : 22.5.00
Name of complainant : Sh. Raj Pal Singh
Name and address of accused :Bhupender @ Bhupe S/o. Sh.
Dayanand, R/o. Village Barwala,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : 353/186/332 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of order : 9.9.2009
Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF REASONS
1. By this judgment I shall dispose off the challan as sent by the SHO PS Bawana against the accused Bhupender @ Bhupe U/s. 353/186/332 IPC on the facts that the accused on 22.5.00 at about 5.30 pm, at main Road, near the house of Master Vijender, Delhi has obstructed Raj Pal, the complainant who is a public servant, from performing / discharging his official duty and he also used criminal force Contd.../-
FIR No. 222/00P.S. Bawana Page no.2 against him with intention to deter him from discharging his public duty and as such he had committed an offence punishable Under Section 186/353/332 IPC and during the investigation he was arrested and it is further submitted that IO had completed the investigation and the SHO, PS Bawana had forwarded the same before the court for the disposal of the same in accordance with law.
2. After filing of the challan, accusedwas summoned and after supplying copies to him, charge Under Section 186/353/332 IPC was framed against him on 9.1.01, to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, the prosecution was given opportunity to prove the accusation against the accused and accordingly, prosecution has examined PW 1 Sh. Raj Pal, the complainant, PW 2 Smt. Vineet Khanna, Record Clerk, BJRM Hospital, PW 4 Insp. Z.H. Khan, the duty officer, PW 5 Smt. Barfo Devi, public witness, PW 6 SI Ramesh Singh, IO of the case and PW 7 Sh. V.S. Thind, Superintendent Engineering, Delhi Jal Board.
It is matter of record that inadvertently no witness with the number PW 3 has been examined by the prosecution. There are 6 witness in total listed in the list of witnesses and the prosecution has examined all the witnesses.
Contd.../-
FIR No. 222/00P.S. Bawana Page no.3
4. PW 1 Sh. Raj Pal is the complainant himself. He had deposed that he was working as driver in Delhi Jal Board on 22.5.00. He took his water tanker no. 0257 to village Barwala and parked the water tanker in a gali in front of house of Master Virender. One boy who was having a halwai shop came there and asked him to park the water tanker near his shop and threatened him. When he refused to do so, said boy started beating him and hit him with a brick on his face on the left side near the eye. Someone informed the police. Police reached the spot and his statement Ex. PW 1/A was recorded and he has identified the accused correctly.
He was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel and in his cross examination he had deposed that he had reached village with the tanker at about 4.00 p.m. The dispute started after 5/7 minutes. He was taken to Jahangir Puri Hospital. His statement was recorded at police post Jahangir Puri. He did not remember as to statement of how many other persons were recorded on that day. IO himself has recorded his statement which he had gone through. His signatures were obtained on 3/4 different papers. He did not know the name of the person who gave him beating but he had seen him personally throwing brick upon him. There were lot of people of the village gathered at the spot due to the incident and they had told that the person who gave Contd.../-
FIR No. 222/00P.S. Bawana Page no.4 injury to him with brick is a boy of the same village. He even knew this accused prior to the incident. He denied the suggestion that accused had not caused injury on his person nor he had thrown any brick upon him nor he had any dispute with him.
5. PW 2 is Smt. Vinnet Khanna, Record Clerk, BJRM Hospital who had deposed that on 2.5.00 during the course of her official duty he has seen Dr. Rakesh Chugh signing and writing who has prepared the present MLC which is Ex. PW 2/A. She was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
6. PW 4 Insp. Z.H. Khan, the duty officer who proved FIR Ex. PW 4/A. He was also not cross examined.
7. PW 5 Smt. Barfo Devi, the public witness who has turned hostile by stating that she knew nothing about this case.
She was cross examined by Ld. APP for the state. And in her cross examination she denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely or she has been won over by the accused. She even admitted as correct that accused present in the court is real son of his devar Dayanand, but denied Contd.../-
FIR No. 222/00P.S. Bawana Page no.5 the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
8. PW 6 Retd. SI Ramesh Singh, IO of the case. He had deposed that on 22.5.00 he was posted at PS Bawana. On that day, he received DD no.33 B Ex. PW 6/A which was handed over by duty officer and thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Subhash Chander reached the spot where one MCD water tanker bearing no. DL-1M-0257 was found standing. He came to know that injured had already been removed to BJRM hospital. Thereafter, he left Ct. Subhash at spot and went to BJRM hospital and obtained the MLC of the injured Raj Pal and since he was declared fit for making statement, he recorded his statement Ex. PW 1/A and came back on the spot and thereafter he prepared tehrir Ex. PW 6/B and handed over to Ct. Subhash Chander for getting the FIR registered and after getting the copy of FIR and original rukka, he prepared site plan Ex. PW 6/C and recorded the statement of witnesses. Injured Raj Pal handed him over photocopy of the moment register which was seized vide memo Ex. PW 6/D and copies thereof were already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/B. He tried to trace out the accused but the accused was not traceable. On 25.5.00 he arrested the accused vide Ex. PW 6/E and conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW 6/F. He obtained permission U/s. 195 Cr.P.C. from the Executive Engineer Delhi, Delhi Jal Board which is Ex. PW 6/G and completed the investigation and filed the Contd.../-
FIR No. 222/00P.S. Bawana Page no.6 challan in the court.
He was also not cross examined despite opportunity given.
9. PW 7 Sh. V.S. Thind, Superintendent Engineering, Delhi Jal Board. He has proved the complaint U/s. 195 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the accused which is Ex. PW 6/G. He was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel and in his cross examination, he had deposed that he did not remember the time when his driver informed him about the incident. The incident pertains to 20.5.00. The duty hours of the aforesaid AE & JE were 9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. and the driver was on shift duty on the day of the incident. He did not remember in which shift the driver was working. His complaint was regarding attack on his driver while he was discharging his official duty. He cannot recollect the name of the injured. He may be Devender or Bhupender. Police officials never interrogated him with respect to said complaint. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
10. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused has submitted that he is innocent and further stated that he wanted to lead evidence in his defence.
Contd.../-
FIR No. 222/00P.S. Bawana Page no.7
11. Accordingly, the accused has examined DW 1 Sh. Jagdish Chander and DW 2 Sh. Purshottam Dass Gupta who both have deposed on the same facts. They deposed that around 7/8 years back they were present on the tea stall which is run by accused Bhupender. At about 4.00 or 4.30 p.m., there was a quarrel took place between some ladies regarding filling of water from the tanker. They had not seen accused Bhupender in the quarrel.
They both were cross examined by Ld. APP for the state.
12. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
13. The allegations against accused is that the accused had obstructed the complainant from discharging his official duty and in that process he had caused injury on the person of complainant i.e PW 1 Raj Pal with intention to deter him from discharging his public duty and as such he had committed the offence. The testimony of PW 1 is material as all other PWs are not much material except IO and PW 1 had deposed that he was working as driver in Delhi Jal Board and on 22.5.00 he parked his water tanker in the gali in front of house of Master Virender and one boy came and told him to park the water tanker near his shop and on his Contd.../-
FIR No. 222/00P.S. Bawana Page no.8 refusal, he gave brick injury on his person. In the entire testimony of PW 1, he has not stated at all that he was obstructed from discharging his duty as a public servant. The only allegations which is coming against the accused is that he wanted that the water tanker which the complainant had stopped in the gali was to be stopped in front of his shop. It has nowhere come in the evidence that what was the duty of this complainant Raj Pal. Was there any landmark where the water tanker is officially stopped is a question which has remained unanswered. What was the duty of this Raj Pal after taking water tanker from Delhi Jal Board to the spot has not been explained.
14. I have gone through the complaint of the complainant, which is recorded by the police and in the complaint also, he has stated that he was working in Delhi Jal Board since last 7/8 months. On 22.5.00 he took his water tanker and went to village Barwala and when he was giving water in Master Virender wali gali, one boy came and stated that he has a meethai shop and he should stop his tanker in front of his shop. He again told this accused Bhupender that this round of supply of water is of this spot and he cannot stop vehicle in front of house of everyone and the moment he stated so, he took a brick in his hand and hit him. From this statement also, it has nowhere come that the accused has ever stopped the complainant from Contd.../-
FIR No. 222/00P.S. Bawana Page no.9 discharging his duty of distributing the water. It has also not come on record that what was the duty of the driver i.e as to whether he had simply to carry the water tanker to village Barwala in front of Virender wali gali or whether he had to distribute the water from the tanker also. Keeping the point in view if accused only had stated that he had to stop his water tanker in front of his shop, it in any case do not reflect that accused ever stopped this witness to discharge his official duty. Even otherwise, there is no evidence on record to suggest that what was the official duty of this witness and whether he had to stop the tanker on the spot, he stopped it or whether he has to stop it in front of the house / shop of accused. This has also not been explained.
15. I have also perused the site plan. In the site plan only point A has been shown where dispute had occurred. It is not mentioned in the site plan as to where was the shop of the accused in the said gali, where the tanker was stopped or where the tanker was officially required to be stopped. I have also seen the duty roaster Ex. PW 1/B and even in the same, it is not clear as to at what particular point the water tanker had to stop. It only states that water tanker has to stop at Baniyewali gali, Barwala and if water is still remained in the tanker then it has to reach Master Virender Wali gali, Main Road. From this fact it is also not clear as to what was the exact spot or position of the water tanker Contd.../-
FIR No. 222/00P.S. Bawana Page no.10 where it was officially to stop. The court is of the opinion that to bring the charge home against the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the duty of PW 1 was to stop his water tanker at a particular point. He tried to stop it and he was obstructed to stop the water tanker at that point and he was not allowed to do his duty. This evidence is missing from the record. If the matter is only to the extent that water tanker should not be stopped at particular point or it has to be stopped in front of house of accused, there appears to be no deterrence to this public servant from discharging his duty.
No doubt, this man has suffered injury. He was even taken to hospital and MLC is on record. His senior officer PW 7 has given the complaint. The message also goes that a public servant has been beaten by someone, but merely on this ground it cannot be said that the complainant was obstructed from discharging his public duty.
To prove this fact, the prosecution has to prove first that the complainant was discharging his official duty and his public duty was to stop water tanker at a particular place and he has been restrained and deterred to stop his water tanker from that place and when he refused to do so he was given injuries. This fact has not been proved at all.
16. Therefore, the court is of the opinion that despite Contd.../-
FIR No. 222/00P.S. Bawana Page no.11 the fact, the complainant have suffered some injury while he was on official duty yet the prosecution has not been able to prove that exactly what his duty was or exactly how he has been stopped from discharging his duty.
17. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable Under Section 186/353/332 IPC. His bail bond is cancelled and surety discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
(SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini, Delhi.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e on 9th September, 2009.
Contd.../-