Delhi District Court
State vs . on 24 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07,
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 12082/2019
Unique Case ID No. -: DLSW020267942019
FIR No. -: 66/2008
Police Station -: VIKASPURI
Section(s) -: 186/353/506 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
1) RAJEEV KUMAR
S/o Sh. Raj Singh,
R/o VPO Kanjhawala,
New Delhi.
.... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : HC Lakhbir Singh
2. Name of Accused : Rajeev Kumar
Offence complained of or
3. : 186/353/506 IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
Date of commission of
5. : 14.03.2008
offence
6. Date of Filing of case : 18.02.2009
7. Date of Reserving Order : 26.06.2023
8. Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2023
Convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 353/186
IPC.
9. Final Order :
Acquitted for the offence
punishable under Section 506
IPC.
Argued by -: Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. counsel for the accused.
Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 1 of 21
1. Accused is facing trial for the offences punishable under Section 186/353/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the 'IPC').
2. Shorn of any unnecessary details, it is the version of prosecution that on 14.03.2018, at about 12.40 PM, at Red Light Point, Uttam Nagar, main Najafgarh road, and within the jurisdiction of PS Vikas Puri, ASI Dharambir was deployed as the duty officer in a Blue-line bus plying on Route no. 883, on special duty. As the driver of the said bus, Nand Kishor s/o Karan Singh, was plying the bus without wearing his proper uniform, he was asked by ASI Dharambir to stop the bus. The driver duly complied. When the driver alighted, Complainant ASI Lakhbir Singh asked him to produce his driving license, and other documents of the bus, but the latter was unable to do so. A challan under relevant provisions of Motor Vehicle Act,1988 was accordingly issued against him. The bus was also impounded . Upon this, accused Rajeev came to the spot, stated himself to be the owner of the vehicle, and asked the cause for which the vehicle was impounded. When he was duly informed of the reasons therefor, he threatened the complainant, caught hold of the collar of his shirt, and snatched away his challan book. He hurled abuses at the complainant, and beat him. In the scuffle, the left pocket of complainant's shirt was torn, and the name plate worn by him was broken.
3. Complaint regarding this incident was made to the PS concerned at the same time, and on the basis of same, the Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 2 of 21 subject FIR was registered. Upon conclusion of investigation, chargesheet instant was filed. Accused was summoned to face trial. When he entered appearance , in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"), copy of chargesheet was supplied to him. Formal charge under Section 186/353/506 IPC was framed against the accused on 10.12.2009, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE -
4. Thereafter proceedings were adjourned for recording of P.E. To prove its case, prosecution examined a total of seven witnesses-
Witness Name Nature of testimony
PW-1 ASI Lakhbir Complainant.
Singh.
PW-2 ASI Eye witness.
DharambirSingh
PW-3 ASI Jai Singh Duty Officer
PW-4 Ct. Pradeep Accompanied the IO.
Kumar
PW-5 Ct. Jagmal Eye witness
PW-6 SI Jile Singh Eye witness
PW-7 ASI Ram Lal Investigating officer
5. Accused admitted the genuineness of the complaint u/s 195 CrPC, Ex A1. Accordingly, witness cited at Serial no.8 of the list of witnesses was dropped. No other witnesses were examined by the prosecution , and P.E was closed thereafter.
Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 3 of 216. Thereafter, in order to accord an opportunity to the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, his statement was recorded without oath under Section 313/281 CrPC. He submitted that he is innocent, and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted to the court that on the day of the incident, he was not even present at the spot thereof. Accused opted not to lead DE in the affirmative.
7. The matter was then fixed for final arguments. Final arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
8. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to delineate the relevant provisions of law:
Section 186 IPC 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 353 IPC Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty:
Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 4 of 21"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 to 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 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 imprisonment for life, of 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."
9. Qua the aforesaid provisions, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in Durgacharan Naik Vs. State of Orissa 1966 AIR 1775, " It is true that most of the allegations in this Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 5 of 21 case upon which the charge under s. 353, Indian Penal Code is based are the same as those constituting the charge under s. 186, Indian Penal Code but it cannot be ignored that Sections 186 and 353, Indian Penal Code relate to two distinct offences and while the offence under the latter section is a cognizable offence, the one under the former section is not so. The ingredients of the two offences are also distinct. Section 186, Indian Penal Code is applicable to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the discharge of his public functions but under s. 353, Indian Penal Code the ingredient of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary. The quality of the two offences is also different. Section 186 occurs in Ch. X of the Indian Penal Code dealing with Contempts of the lawful authority of public servants, while s. 353 occurs in Ch. XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body. It is well-established that s. 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same set of facts but which is not within the ambit of that section."
10. Bare perusal of the two provisions reveals that there is a great overlap in the areas they operate, in as much as both of them relate to obstruction made in the functioning go a public servant, while the latter is discharging his public duties. However, an essential difference between the two provisions is that Section 353 IPC contemplates physical assault used for such obstruction, as an essential ingredient, and is classed as an Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 6 of 21 offence against human body, unlike Section 186 IPC, which is classified as an offence against authority of a public servant.
"Assault" is defined under Section 351 IPC as making of 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. For the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, prosecution had to prove that words used by accused caused an alarm in the mind of complainant, and made him abstain from doing his duty, or do some, act which he otherwise would not have done.
11. In the case at hand, prosecution has alleged both obstruction by accused of act of public servants discharging their duties, and assault committed for such obstruction. It has also been alleged that during the incident accused intimated the complainant as well.
12. Now, by virtue of Section 195 CrPC, cognizance of the offence under Section 186 IPC can only be taken on the basis of complaint filed by a public servant. The said complaint on the basis of which the cognizance in the present case was taken is Ex. A1. The same was admitted by the accused, and accordingly, can be considered to have been proved. The complainant was, at the relevant time, an officer whose duty it was to prevent offences and to give information of such offences. It is thus asserted by prosecution, and nowhere denied by the accused, that Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 7 of 21 complainant was a "public servant" within the meaning of Section 21 IPC at the time of the incident and hence, without further ado, the same is also considered to be a fact established by the prosecution.
13. The evidence led on record shall be analysed now to ascertain if the prosecution could prove that accused was present at the spot at the time of the alleged incident, obstructed the complainant while the latter was discharging his duties, and used "assault" as a means to do so. It shall also be analysed if accused criminally intimidated the complainant.
14. Complainant ASI Lakhbir Singh was examined by the prosecution as PW1. Needless to say, his testimony forms the fulcrum of the case of the prosecution, and has to be minutely scrutinised as such. When his examination-in -chief is appraised, it is seen that the witness was meticulous in his testimony. The witness detailed with sufficient accuracy how the events of the day unfolded. He deposed that how ASI Dharamvir was deputed in blue line bus plying at route no. 883 on the date of the incident and bearing registration no. DL 1PB 3975, and how the former got the driver of the bus to stop the vehicle at the spot of the alleged incident, upon his instructions. He further testified that when he then asked the driver to produce the documents, the latter was unable to comply, and resultantly he impounded the vehicle. He avouched that upon this, the accused came to the spot claiming himself to be the owner of the bus, caught hold of the Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 8 of 21 collar of his shirt, beat him up, and also threatened to kill him by saying even if he were to fire bullets at him, nobody will be able to take any adverse action against the accused. In his testimony, the witness also correctly identified the shirt which he was wearing at the time of the incident, and which was torn by the accused in the altercation that had ensured. He also identified the broken name plate. The same were exhibited as Ex. P1. Scrutiny of the testimony of the witness reveals that the witness was cross- examined on aspects completely extraneous to the case at hand. It was testified by the witness that against the same vehicle, a challan was issued earlier too, and the vehicle was impounded on 13.01.2008. The witness was asked if the said documents relating to the said prior challan were given by him to the IO, and he answered in the negative . Now, while the penal provisions which have been invoked against the accused persons provide for the offence of disruption caused in the act of a public servant, surely it cannot be open to the accused to challenge at this stage that the said action was not being discharged by said public person properly, given that broadly, the act was being done in discharge of duty. If such were to be the case, each person who is accused of the subject offences would later take the defence that the public servant was not properly discharging his duty, leading to an anomalous situation. The purpose of the provision has to be understood to be to prevent obstruction in discharge of his duties by every public servant acting under the colour of his office, excepting only such situations where the act being done by such person would not qualify as discharge of public duty, being completely divorced from the scope of his duties. In the case at Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 9 of 21 hand, it is seen that the complainant was atleast discharging his duty in the color of his office. Whether or not he had properly checked the documents of the driver at the relevant time or whether he had properly verified the factum of the previous challan issued with respect to the vehicle were the defences which could have been taken by the owner / driver of the vehicle during relevant proceedings emanating from the said challan under provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. However, the same can not allowed as an excuse to the accused to obstruct the public servant from discharging his duty. Similar is the effect of the fact that the witness admitted in his cross examination that he never enquired about the ownership of the said bus from the MLO concerned. The offence at hand does not pertain to the owner of the specific vehicle, but the fact the accused had come to the spot posing himself to be the owner thereof, and had obstructed a public person in discharging his public duties. As such, even this portion of testimony of PW1 does not help the accused. Further, the fact that PW1 was unable to specify in his cross examination the name of the tailor from whose shop he got the shirt stitched, the same that he was wearing at the time of the incident, also does not detract from the credibility of his testimony. The witness remained steadfast in his testimony, and non-mentioning of the name of the tailor by him cannot lead this Court to form the conclusion that the witness was lying about the incident itself. Such a conclusion drawn from the testimony would be farcical, if not downright absurd. The argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused that the fact that the seizure memo Ex. PW1/A mentions the shirt's color to be white, while in the Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 10 of 21 testimony of ASI Lakhbir Singh it is recorded that the shirt that was brought in court was off-white in color, it means that the same shirt was never brought in the court, also does not hold any water. Merely because at the time of the seizure the IO chose to write the color of the shirt as white in the seizure memo, and was not meticulous enough to notice that its color was off-white also does not detract from the credibility of the testimony of the witness, when the witness has been consistent qua his version otherwise. No cross-examination to demolish the version of witness qua the actual act of assault was done.
15. It is seen from the testimony of PW1 that it was suggested to the witness in his cross-examination that the accused was falsely implicated in the case as he refused to accede to demands of the complainant for illegal gratification. Now, merely by suggesting so, the accused could not gain much. To the contrary, in fact. Without so much as elaborately suggesting what exact demands were made from the accused, the suggestion qua illegal gratification doesn't further his case. However, implicit in the suggestion is the admission of the accused that he was indeed present at the time of the incident. This tacit admission in fact furthers the case of prosecution, to which the testimony of PW1, consistent and uncontroverted on material aspects, lends great credibility.
16. PW ASI Dharamvir Singh was examined by the prosecution as PW 2. In his testimony, PW2 also fully supported Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 11 of 21 the case of prosecution. In his examination in chief, he deposed that he was deputed on special duty to challan those drivers of blue line buses who violate traffic rules. He deposed that at about 12.40 PM on the date of the incident, he and ASI Zile Singh asked the driver of the bus bearing no. DL 1PB 3975 to stop his vehicle, as he was driving the same without wearing a uniform. Thereafter, he informed ASI Lakhbir Singh/complainant about the same, who then came to the spot and issued a challan against the driver. PW2 also deposed that when the driver could not produce the documents as sought by the complainant / PW1 Lakhbir Singh, the latter decided to impound the vehicle at which time the accused came to the spot, introduced himself to be the owner of the vehicle, and started quarrelling and misbehaving with PW1/ ASI Lakhbir Singh. PW2 also lucidly deposed how the accused caught hold of the collar of the shirt of PW1, snatched the challan book from him, and how in the altercation, the pocket of the shirt of ASI Lakhbir Singh was torn. He also testified that accused threatened to shoot the complainant, by saying that latter would be left remedy-less if the accused decided to harm him. In his testimony, even PW2 relied upon the seizure memo Ex. PW2/A ,vide which the torn shirt of PW1 was taken into his possession by the IO, and deposed that the site plan Ex. PW1/B was prepared in his presence. The witness also correctly identified the shirt as well as the broken name plate of PW1 in his testimony, Ex. P1. Nothing damaging could be elicited from this witness as well by the accused. The inability of the witness to specify if he had seen any documents as to ascertain the ownership of the bus, or his testimony to the effect Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 12 of 21 that he has not seen the RC of the bus does not have any material bearing on the facts the case, in view of the discussion in the forgoing portion of this judgment qua similar questions asked of PW1. It was suggested to this witness also that the real cause of scuffle between complainant and accused was the demand of illegal gratification made by the complainant, containing within itself an admission of the fact that an incident had indeed taken place on that day.
17. PW5 Ct Jagmal and PW6 ASI Zile Singh, both being eye witnesses to the incident in question, also deposed on similar lines in their examinations-in-chief. In support of the prosecution version, both of the witnesses deposed that the bus driver of the bus bearing registration no. DL IPB 3975 was asked to stop the bus and alight since he was not wearing his uniform, and upon being asked to do so, he was not even able to produce the documents sought by the complainant. PW5 deposed that hot words were spoken by the accused, and that he was the one who had taken the bus till the pit, after it was impounded. PW6 also deposed, almost eidetically, how accused Rajeev Kumar grappled with PW1 on the date of the incident, because of which not only did PW1 suffered an assault, but his clothes were also torn. Even these witnesses correctly identified the case property Ex. P1, and also testified that the accused was arrested in their presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C. In their respective cross- examinations, these witnesses also admitted that they did not see any document which could have established that accused is the Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 13 of 21 owner of the bus which was impounded, or any document which could establish that prior challan pending against the said bus. However, as already discussed above, this admission of the witnesses does not advance the case of the accused.
18. Now, PW5 deposed that the challan was issued against the bus at 12.40PM, and that he had arrived at the spot at the same time. There is some incongruence in the testimony here, but same does not go the root of the case of prosecution. Further, PW5 deposed that when the IO/PW7 reached the spot, the passengers of the bus were still present at the spot, whereas PW6 deposed that the passengers left the spot as soon as the bus was impounded. There are contradictions in the testimonies of these witnesses. However, these contradictions are also not sufficient to disbelieve the entire version of prosecution. The said contradictions pertain to events which are ex-post facto to the incident- ie, the presence of public witnesses at the spot at the time of arrival of the IO. When juxtaposed to the testimony of the complainant, the creditworthiness of testimony of which witness couldn't be shaken by accused, the contradictions can't be accorded much value. They also have to be understood in light of the fact that their testimonies were recorded after lapse of a considerable period of time since the incident. The testimony of complainant being largely unassailed, minor contradictions in testimonies of other witnesses are not as damaging to the case of prosecution, to take away from its credit worthiness completely.
Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 14 of 2119. The IO of the case ASI Ram Lal was examined as PW-7. PW7 deposed that a PCR call regarding the incident was made, being DD no. 45B PS Vikas Puri dated 14.03.2008. he deposed that after receiving the call, he alongwith Ct. Pradeep Kumar went to the spot where he met PW1 Lakhbir Singh and 3- 4 other staff members from traffic police. He deposed that the complainant / PW1 informed about the incident, and also gave him a written complaint Ex. PW1/A upon which he made his tehrir Ex. PW7/A and handed it over to Ct. Pradeep, so that the FIR could be registered on the basis of the same. He testified about the codal formalities of seizure of the case property as well as the arrest of the accused discharged by him. He also deposed that he then obtained the necessary sanction under Section 195 CrPC, which is already Ex. A1. The witness also identified the case property in his testimony. In his cross examination, the witness deposed that by the time he reached the spot, the bus had already been sent to the pit, after being impounded. He also deposed that there were no passengers present on the spot when he reached there. The witness further testified in his cross examination that neither the driver nor the conductor of the bus was present at the spot when he reached there for investigation. He admitted in his cross examination that neither he joined any public witnesses to the investigation, nor served any notice upon the said witnesses when they refused to join the investigation. The witness was asked in his cross examination if the complainant remained on the spot bare chested after his shirt was seized upon which the complainant replied that the complainant wore his civil clothes consequent to the seizure of the case Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 15 of 21 property. In his testimony, the witness was also asked to specify the time at which he had given the rukka for registration of the FIR, to which he answered that he had sent the rukka at about 04.30 PM on the date of the incident.
20. Now, it was vehemently argued by accused that as revealed from scrutiny of testimonies of PW2, PW6 and PW7, there are gaps in the prosecution case as regards the presence of public Scrutiny of testimony of PW7 reveals that in his entire examination in chief, he has not stated that he was the eye witness to the incident. He has infact fairly deposed that when he reached the spot of the incident even the bus had already been sent to the pit. As such, the fact that he admitted he did not join any public witnesses to the incident is not sufficient to discredit the case of the prosecution. Contradictions certainly exist in the testimonies of PW7 and PW5 in this regard, but as discussed already, they are insufficient to discredit prosecution case. Even otherwise, it is a well settled principle of law that while rule of prudence demands that public witnesses must be joined in the investigation, the fact that the IO fails to do so does not discredit the case of prosecution, if testimony of complainant is sound. Testimonies of police officials are not to be looked at with disbelief merely because they are police officials, when they are able to otherwise withstand the scrutiny of cross examination perfectly. Reliance at this juncture is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jawahar vs State (Delhi) 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 336 wherein it was held that keeping in Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 16 of 21 view the fact that public witnesses are reluctant to join investigation, absence of public witnesses does not ipso fact mean that the entire case of the prosecution has to be dumped. In view of the same, the testimonies of PW2, PW5, PW6 and PW7 that the place where the incident occurred is a crowded area, with shops around etc, despite which no public witnesses were joined to the investigation is not sufficient to discredit the case of the prosecution. It has to be remembered that while the guilt of the accused has to be proved on record beyond reasonable doubt, the doubt that has to be raised on the credibility of prosecution version must also be reasonable. Not every doubt raised on the version of prosecution can have the effect of discrediting its case. At the cost of reiteration, PW1/complainant has remained steadfast in his testimony, and other police witnesses have broadly supported his case. As such, absence of public witnesses does not dilute the prosecution version. Furthermore, in view of this principle of law, even the fact that there are certain discrepancies pointed out in the testimonies of witnesses as regards the time at which FIR was registered also does not advance the case of the accused.
21. Pertinent to discuss at this juncture is the testimony of PW4. He deposed that he had gone to the spot with the IO, where they met the complainant, and when the IO gave him the rukka , he took it to the PS where the FIR was registered. He testified that he then returned to the spot, and the seizure memo, arrest memo of accused, and his personal search memo were Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 17 of 21 made in his presence. Ld. Counsel for accused pointed out that PW4 Ct. Pradeep testified in his examination in chief that he had reached the spot of incident alongwith the IO / PW7. He pointed out that while the IO had deposed that he had reached the spot at about 02.15 PM, PW4 testified in his cross-examination that the information regarding the incident was shared with him by the IO at about 04.00- 05.00 PM on the date of the incident. It is seen that the testimony of this witness was recorded on 21.11.2012, more than four years after the date of the incident. In such a scenario, the fact that the witness was not accurate about the time at which he had reached the spot of incident is not sufficient to discredit his testimony or the case of the prosecution. Infact, little contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses examined, as this, show that the witnesses examined by prosecution were truthful, and did not choose to embellish their testimonies in any manner. Certain lapses in memory, attributable to the passage of time, are to be expected in the normal course of nature, and existence of these lapses can not have the effect of discrediting the entire version of the prosecution. It is seen that PW4 testified that he had signed certain documents Ex. PW2/A being the complaint and Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D in the police station. This portion of testimony of PW4 does not support the case of the prosecution. However, it is also observed that in other respects ,PW4 has supported the case of prosecution by stating that when he had reached the spot of incident he had met the complainant and 4-5 other people at the spot, and that he had accompanied the IO, when the latter was taking the accused for his medical examination to DDU Hospital. It is a well settled principle under Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 18 of 21 Indian Jurisprudence, that testimony of a hostile witness is not to be disregarded in its entirety. Even if the witness has turned hostile to the version of prosecution in some respects, his testimony still indicates that the incident as alleged had taken place, and does not detracted from the version of the prosecution. Furthermore, little importance can be attached to the fact that witness admitted to signing the documents such as the site map or seizure memo in the police station, when by giving suggestions that accused was falsely implicated for he did not give in to the demands for illegal gratification, accused has admitted his presence at the spot of the incident, as a consequences of which the site-plan loses its importance.
22. PW3 ASI Jai Prakash examined by the prosecution is a formal witness, and he proved the registration of the subject FIR.
23. When considered cumulatively, it is noted that -
(i) Complainant/PW1 testified with considerable accuracy as to how and under what circumstances he was assaulted, on the day of the incident. His testimony was not controverted on any material point. Further, testimonies of other eye witnesses such as PW2, PW4 and PW6 broadly supported his testimony as regards the incident of assault, even though some discrepancies otherwise crept in the testimonies of these witnesses (effect of which has been discussed above).
(ii) When his statement was recorded under Section Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 19 of 21 313 CrPC, accused submitted to the Court that he was not even present at the spot of the incident. This, however, seems to be an after- thought, for the entire tenor of the suggestions given by him to the witnesses of prosecution was that he was falsely implicated in the case by the complainant, when he refused to accede to illegal demands of the latter. Impliedly, he admitted his presence at the spot.
(iii) No material gaps were pointed out in the case of prosecution by the accused. Assault, for the purpose of obstructing the complainant in discharging his duties, caused by the accused was proved. It can be safely concluded that prosecution has been able to weave a seamless case against the accused qua the offences punishable under Section 186/353 IPC.
(iv)However, as regards the offence of criminal intimidation is concerned, while PW1/complainant testified that accused threatened to kill him, and other witnesses also supported his case regarding the threat, it is seen that complainant never testified that he omitted to do something as a result of the threat, or did an act which he otherwise would not have. The accused is seen to have extended threats to the complainant during the assault, but without any apparent actual intention of following through on the threats. Subsequent conduct of both parties is also a testament to the fact. As such, it cannot be held that sufficient alarm was caused in the mind of the complainant from the said threat, as would constitute an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Guidance at this juncture can be sought from the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 20 of 21 Punjab and Haryana in the judgment titled Rajinder Dutt vs State of Haryana (1993) CrLJ 1025 (P and H) wherein it was held that mere outburst of accused at the time of assault that he will kill the injured will not attract Section 506 IPC. Accused Rajeev Kumar s/o Raj Singh is acquitted of the said offence.
24. Accordingly, accused Rajeev Kumar s/oRaj Singh is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 186/353 IPC, but is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.
25. Let the convict be heard separately on the point of sentence. Copy of the judgment be provided to the convict free of costs.
Pronounced in open court on 24.07.2023 in presence of accused person.
This judgment contains 21 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned. Digitally signed by MEDHA MEDHA ARYA Date:
ARYA 2023.07.25 17:01:35 +0530 (MEDHA ARYA) Metropolitan Magistrate - 07 South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, 24.07.2023.Cr. Case No. 12082/2019 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Page 21 of 21