Delhi District Court
State vs . Govind Jha on 30 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. ALKA SINGH
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-08
(SOUTH-WEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
DLSW020024772018
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Govind Jha
FIR No. 196/2017
PS : Uttam Nagar
U/s 186/353 IPC
Date of Institution : 16.01.2018
Date of Judgment : 30.04.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 1250/2018
2. Name of the Complainant : Ajay Kumar, PS Nazarat
Branch, Dwarka Court, Delhi
3. Date of commission of offence : 09.04.2017
4. Name of accused person : Govind Jha
S/o Mukesh Jha
R/o H. No.A60, Gali no.28,
Vipin Garden Extn., Near
Fakar Baba Mandir, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi.
State Vs. Govind Jha
FIR No.196/17 P.S. Uttam Nagar
Judgment dated 30.04.2022
Page No. 1 of 10
5. Offence charged : U/s 186/353 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Final Order : ACQUITTAL
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. The accused has been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 186/353 of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 09.04.2017 at about 12.05pm accused voluntarily obstructed the complainant Ajay Kumar, a public servant, in the discharge of his public functions and also assaulted and used criminal force against the complainant while he was trying to serve the summons on the accused which were torn by him.
3. After conclusion of investigation, the present chargesheet was filed against the accused u/s 186/353 IPC.
4. On receipt of chargesheet, Cognizance of offence was taken and accused was summoned to face trial. Copy of the chargesheet alongwith all annexures was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. After giving opportunity to state as well as accused for making submissions on charge, a notice for offence u/s 186/353 IPC was State Vs. Govind Jha FIR No.196/17 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 30.04.2022 Page No. 2 of 10 served upon the accused on 18.04.2018, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution examined four witnesses to prove its case.
7. ASI Sujit Singh was examined as PW1, who was only a formal witness, called upon to depose regarding the Rukka Ex. PW1/2 on the basis of which FIR Ex. PW1/A was registered and after the registration the same was handed over to HC Surender for further submission to ASI Dharambir. The said witness was not cross examined by the defence counsel.
8. PW2 Complainant Ajay Kumar was examined who stated that he has been posted as process server in the Nazarat Branch, Dwarka Court, since 2008 and the incident happened in 2017 when he went to the house of accused for serving the court summons on him. (Accused was present in the court and was correctly identified by the witness). He testified that accused Govind Jha when he reached at the house of the accused, he met with his wife and mother, they telephoned the accused as he was not present. Thereafter, accused came, saw the summons and asked his wife to read the same after which he took the summons and tore it. He further deposed that he called at 100 number and the PCR arrived whereupon the accused was made to sit in the PCR. He stated that he was going to the police station but in the meanwhile he received the call from the IO and went back to the spot where the torn pieces of summons were collected by the IO. Same were Ex. P-1. He stated that he thereafter, went to the police station where his statement was recorded. His complaint was Ex. PW2/A, State Vs. Govind Jha FIR No.196/17 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 30.04.2022 Page No. 3 of 10 seizure memo of summons was Ex. PW2/B and arrest memo Ex. PW2/C. In his cross examination it was stated that he reached at the house of the accused at around 11.30am on a Sunday and accused came at about 11.45am and tore the summons within 2-3 minutes of his arrival. He stated that at the time of tearing of the summons only his mother and wife were present. Thereafter, within a minute he called at 100 number and stayed at the spot for about 15 minutes after the incident, that the PCR came after after 15 minutes and IO arrived at the spot after 45 minutes. He stated that he gave his complaint Ex. PW2/A in the Police Station around 1.30pm. He stated that he stayed for a total of 45 minutes at the spot and 15-20 minutes after coming back. Thereafter, illustrated the proceedings carried out by the IO such as preparing the site plan, seizing the summons and arrest of the accused. All the adverse suggestion were denied by the witness.
9. As PW3 ASI Dharambir Singh was examined who stated that DD no.42A was marked to him on 09.04.2017 and he left for the place of incident with HC Surender where they contacted the complainant telephonically and called him at the spot, whereafter, the complainant came and gave handwritten complaint Ex. PW2/A. The endorsement of the witness on the said complaint was Ex. PW3/A. He thereafter, described the other investigation proceedings carried out by him which included obtaining of sanction for filing of complaint U/s 195 CrPC and thereafter, he prepared the challan and filed it before the court. In his cross examination he stated that there is no recorded of his arrival or departure and that complainant gave the complaint at the State Vs. Govind Jha FIR No.196/17 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 30.04.2022 Page No. 4 of 10 spot. He further deposed that he remained at the spot for about 4-5 hours and prepared site plan but no public person or eye witness was present. The witness could not confirm if any child was present at the house of the accused but the complainant was present with him till the time his statement U/s 161 CrPC was recorded at the spot. He deposed that arrest of the accused was made at 5.00pm and except the torn pieces of summons nothing else was seized. He thereafter denied all the suggestion of the defence counsel having adverse inferences.
10. As PW-4 HC Surender Kumar was examined, who deposed on similar lines as of IO SI Dharambir Singh and stated that IO gave him the tehrir for the registration of the case, which he gave to the duty officer and came back at the spot and handed over to the IO the copy of FIR and the rukka. He also correctly identified the accused who was present in the court. In his cross examination it was stated that the IO, accused and complainant remained at the spot till 5.30pm and that they have left from the police station at 12.20pm. He also deposed that public persons present there were asked to join the investigation by IO but all of them refused to join, however, no notice was served upon them by the IO. He also stated that his statement was recorded by the IO at PS and that he is not sure about the time when the summons Ex. PW2/B were seized by the IO. On a specific question put to him regarding the statement of PW3 ASI Dharambir U/s 161 CrPC he stated that he did not know when the said statement was recorded by the IO. Thereafter,all the suggestions of the defence counsel having adverse inferences were denied by the witness.
State Vs. Govind Jha FIR No.196/17 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 30.04.2022 Page No. 5 of 10
11. Since, no other witness was examined by prosecution, hence, the PE was closed and statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to allow him to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidences against him wherein it was stated by the accused that he is innocent and at the time of the incident his son namely Om Jha aged about 4 years, took the summons from his hand and tore the same regarding which he also apologized to the process server but he demanded money in return which was refused by him.
12. The accused opted to examine himself and his wife as witnesses in his defence and the same were allowed as per relevant provisions.
13. The accused examined himself as DW1 and stated that on 09.04.2017 his wife had telephonically informed him that a person has come from the court to serve the summons and upon reaching his house the said person started to demand money and when he refused, he started to snatch away the summons from his hand and in the meantime his four years son snatched the summons from the hands of the process server because of which it was torn and the process server kept the summons with himself. In his cross examination conducted on behalf of state, nothing relevant came to the fore.
14. Ms. Payal Jha was examined as DW2 who reiterated the same facts as her husband. She was also cross examined by the state.
15. Since, no other witnesses were examined by the defence, the DE was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
State Vs. Govind Jha FIR No.196/17 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 30.04.2022 Page No. 6 of 10
16. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of state as well as the accused.
17. It is submitted by the defence counsel that in the present case no hurt has been caused to the process server and therefore, offence U/s 353 IPC is not made out moreover, the place of incident is also doubtful because the complainant had stated that the incident took place inside the house and the IO stated that it took place outside the house and still no public witnesses were examined by him. He also argued that it has been very specifically stated by the accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 CrPC before this court as well as in his deposition that the summons were torn by his son and not by him. It was also contended by the defence counsel that process server was not required to call the accused for serving the summons rather he should have served the summons on any male member present in the house of accused.
18. Per contra, Ld. APP for State argued that it was already stated by the complainant in his testimony that only mother and wife of accused was present in the house and it was the wife who has called the accused and not the process server. Thus, the ld. APP summed up his arguments saying that prosecution has been successful in establishing that summons were torn by the accused and right thereafter, call at 100 number was made.
19. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the case file meticulously.
20. Now this court shall appreciate the evidences one by one in State Vs. Govind Jha FIR No.196/17 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 30.04.2022 Page No. 7 of 10 order to decide whether the prosecution has been successful in proving its case.
21. Present is a case where the complainant as well as the accused both have been very consistent and firm in their respective stands. Thus, now the court has to weigh and decide whose version has been more convincing while scrutinizing the variations and deviations appearing in the testimonies of the witnesses examined from both the sides.
22. The complainant has been very peculiar in giving all the details about the incident and the exact times when each of the stated events happened but then the contradictions appeared in the testimony of PW3 who stated that the call from the complainant was received by him at 12.20pm and they reached at the spot at around 1-1.15pm whereas as per the deposition of complainant, incident happened between 11.45am to 11.50am and right thereafter a call at 100 was made and the PCR arrived after 15 minutes which should be before 12.20pm. It was also stated by the complainant that IO arrived after 45 minutes. As per DD no.42A also the call was received at 12.16pm.
23. Besides, as per the complainant he gave his complaint Ex.
PW2/A in the police station and very specifically emphasized that no written complaint or statement was given at the place of incident but as per the testimony of the IO ASI Dharambir the complaint Ex. PW2/A was given by the complainant to him at the spot itself whereafter, endorsement was made on it and it was sent for registration of the FIR. It has also come in the evidence of the IO that State Vs. Govind Jha FIR No.196/17 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 30.04.2022 Page No. 8 of 10 while leaving the police station no departure entry was made by him and therefore, this argument was taken by the ld. LAC for accused that IO did not investigate the matter at all. While the complainant has stated that he remained at the spot for about one and half hours, the IO had stated that he was there for 4-5 hours within which time he prepared the site plan, inquired the public witnesses (whose names are conspicuously missing from the record) and arrested the accused at about 5.00pm when the wife of the complainant was also present, which has never been so stated by the complainant. Thus, the court will proceed to accept the contention of the defence counsel that IO has not done the investigation properly otherwise this inconsistency would not have appeared.
24. Therefore, while juxtaposing the versions of both the contending sides, the court here is bound to give certain benefits of doubts to the defence which has taken a single stand throughout the peregrination of the case, i.e. accused has not committed any offence rather his kid snatched away the summons from the hands of the process server and tore it for which the process server also asked for bribe, be it in the forms of suggestions given to the complainant during his testimony or in the statement recorded U/s 313 CrPC, and also when the accused himself stood to testify in the witness box.
25. Thus, even though the court overlooks the asynchronous asseveration of the complainant or the IO, the court definitely cannot overlook the consistent and persistent defence of the accused, that the summons were torn by his kid and not by him and here also certain State Vs. Govind Jha FIR No.196/17 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 30.04.2022 Page No. 9 of 10 modifications or dissimilitudes have appeared when one sees the statement of the accused and his testimony before the court, but which the court will equally overlook, as the main defence of the accused had remained intact. Hence, as it has always been, in criminal cases the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt, that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not and if there is a slightest doubt, no matter how small it is, the benefit will go to the accused.
26. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, it can conclusively, be held that Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the accused Govind Jha S/o Mukesh Jha is acquitted of charge U/s 186/353 IPC.
27. Ordered Accordingly.
Pronounced on this Day of 30th of April, 2022.
This judgment consists of 10 signed pages.
(ALKA SINGH) Metropolitan Magistrate-08/South-West Dwarka Courts: New Delhi State Vs. Govind Jha FIR No.196/17 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 30.04.2022 Page No. 10 of 10