Delhi District Court
State vs Anuj Parasar on 6 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 238/2015
U/Sec. : 186/333/353 IPC
PS : Defence Colony
In the matter of :-
State Vs. Anuj Parasar
Brief Details Of The Case
Case Number : 526/2022
Offence complained of : 186/333/353 IPC
Date of Offence : 29.05.2015
Name of the complainant : Madan Singh
S/o Sh. Chet Ram
R/o H. No. B-130
Mata Wali Gali
Johri Pur, Delhi- 110094
Name of the accused : Anuj Parasar
R/o House No. 244
Pocket 10, Nasir Pur
Dwarka, New Delhi.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted
U/Sec. 186/333/353 IPC
Date of Institution : 03.06.2022
Date of Judgment Reserved on : 25.09.2023
Date of Judgment : 06.10.2023
State Vs. Anuj Prasar (SC NO. 526/2022) Page 1 of 14
JUDGMENT
1. This case highlights, how a citizen of India, should not behave. It also highlights the challenges faced by public servants, at the hands of miscreants while discharging their official duties.
2. Facts which can be gleaned from the record, are that on 29.05.2015 SI Nand Kishore received DD No. 13 A pertaining to quarrel at Andrewz Ganj Bus Stop in a DTC bus. He along with Ct. Subhash reached there and found one DTC bus bearing no. DL-1PC-3327 alongwith accused Anuj Parashar. It was found that complainant was shifted to hospital by PCR vehicle. Thereafter, leaving Ct. Subhash at the spot with accused, SI Nand Kishore went to AIIMS Trauma Center, where he met the complainant. On inquiry, complainant gave namely Madan Singh gave his statement.
3. In his statement, complainant stated that he was a driver of bus in question and was going from Dhaula Kuan towards Mayur Vihar Phase-III. Around 12:45 PM when he drove the said bus on Kotla Pul after leaving South-Ex Bus Stand, one passenger asked him to stop the bus, but he refused to do so as there was no bus stand. That passenger started scuffling with him and had beaten him. As a result of said beatings, he sustained injuries on his nose and eye. He prayed for legal action against the said assailant.
4. Based on said statement, FIR in question was registered and investigation ensued.
State Vs. Anuj Prasar (SC NO. 526/2022) Page 2 of 145. Investigation was marked to SI Nand Kishore, who recorded statements of witnesses, prepared site plan, collected medical record of victim / complainant, seized blood stained shirt of complainant, prepared memos and deposited the case property which included shirt of complainant in police station by sealing it with the seal of 'MKK'. Further investigation was carried out by SI Prem Singh, who obtained sanction under Section 195 Cr.PC and added Section 333 IPC. Thereafter, he filed chargesheet in the Court.
6. After filing of the chargesheet, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and summoned accused. Thereafter proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C were concluded and then matter was committed to this court as per law.
7. Consequent to the receiving of this matter, arguments on charge were heard and based on the contents of chargesheet, accused was charged with offences punishable u/s 186/333/353 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then fixed for prosecution evidence.
8. Prosecution examined five witnesses in total.
9. PW-1 Ashwani Sharma was the conductor in bus in question, who deposed about accused scuffling with complainant on the day and time in question. He identified accused in the Court and deposed that his statement was recorded by Police in police station.
State Vs. Anuj Prasar (SC NO. 526/2022) Page 3 of 1410. PW-2 Rajan Kumar in his testimony deposed that scuffling had taken place between driver and one passenger in a bus having route no. 393 on 29.05.2015 around 12 noon. He called police at 100 number. Thereafter he left the spot. He did not identify the accused in the Court.
11. PW-3 Inspector Prem Singh and PW-4 Inspector Nand Kishore were the investigating officers in this case. In their respective testimonies, they deposed about the manner in which they had conducted investigation, as mentioned in para 3 of this judgment. Same needs no repetition. PW-4 identified documents viz. Ex.PA4- DD Entry No. 13A, Ex.PW4/A- Rukka, Ex.PW4/B- site plan, Ex.PW4/C- Arrest memo, Ex.PW4/D- Personal search memo and Ex.PW4/E- Seizure Memo, in his testimony.
12. PW-5 Saheb was another witness who deposed that on 29.05.2015 he had witnessed accused physically quarreling with driver of bus having route no. 398 as accused being a commuter had asked the driver to stop the bus on the flyover, which said bus driver refused. He also had called police at 100 number.
13. Accused admitted documents viz., registration of FIR Ex.PA- 1(already Ex.PW5/B), certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PA-2, DD no.12A Ex.PA-3 (already Ex.A-1), DD no.13B Ex.PA-4 (already Ex.A-
2), DD no.33B Ex.PA-5 (already Ex.A-3), MLC of Madan Singh Ex.PA-6 (already Ex.PW8/B), report of forensic medicine Ex.PA-7 (already Ex.PW7/A) and complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C Ex.PA-8 (already Ex.PW6/A), under Section 294 Cr.PC.
State Vs. Anuj Prasar (SC NO. 526/2022) Page 4 of 1414. After examining above witnesses, prosecution closed its evidence and matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused.
15. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, all the incriminating evidence was put to accused, which he denied. He explained that he had boarded the bus in question from Safdarjung Hospital and deboarded the said bus at Andrewz Ganj Bus Stop. Few boys were quarreling with the driver. He did not know those boys, who had deboarded the bus at the bus stop. Thereafter, public persons had pointed out that he was involved in the quarrel which was a false fact and subsequently he was implicated in this case, falsely. He did not prefer to lead defense evidence. Consequently, matter was fixed for final arguments.
16. After hearing final arguments, matter was listed for judgment.
17. Before appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution, I must mention here the law of appreciating evidence of the witnesses. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed :-
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is State Vs. Anuj Prasar (SC NO. 526/2022) Page 5 of 14 shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
18. Keeping in mind aforesaid tenet, I am proceeding further and appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution.
19. Complainant Madan Singh, with whom accused had allegedly fought on the day and time of incident in question, expired, prior to entering the witness box. So prosecution was never able to examine him.
20. Besides complainant, prosecution had examined PW-1 Ashwani Sharma, PW-2 Rajan Kumar and PW-5 Saheb by claiming that said persons had witnessed incident in question.
21. I will be examining testimonies of said witnesses in my subsequent paragraphs.
State Vs. Anuj Prasar (SC NO. 526/2022) Page 6 of 1422. PW-1 Ashwani Sharma in his testimony had deposed that he was conductor in the bus in question at the time of incident in question. He was sitting at the backside of the bus when he heard accused and driver of the said bus, quarreling with each other. Thereafter, he came to the front side of the bus and observed that accused was scuffling with driver and public persons somehow rescued both the said persons involved in scuffle.
23. Much stress was laid by accused with respect to the stand of this witness in his testimony which was recorded before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and the deposition he had made before this Court. Ld. Counsel for accused vehemently argued that testimony of PW-1 cannot be relied as he materially altered his version, which he had deposed before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and before this Court. In order to decide said issue, testimony of PW-1 has to be appreciated, in detail.
24. To start with, I find that accused did not dispute the facts viz. that PW-1 was present in bus in question, as a driver at the time of incident in question and the fact that there was a scuffle between accused and driver of said bus. No suggestion was given to the contrary, when PW-1 was cross examined by accused, in this regard.
25. PW-1 was examined by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on 01.02.2017 and 03.03.2017. Those statement were referred as Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW- 1/B, during trial. In those statements, he had deposed that accused had given fist blows to the driver of bus in question and that he had not seen accused giving beatings to the driver. In order to remove confusion, he was State Vs. Anuj Prasar (SC NO. 526/2022) Page 7 of 14 put Court question, to clarify as to what exactly he wanted to convey by drawing his attention towards those previous depositions. He answered that he had seen accused beating driver of bus in question and had deposed that he had not seen accused beating driver of bus in question, in his previous statement Ex. PW-1/B as he wanted to convey that he had not seen accused beating driver of bus in question from the very starting. He deposed that his answer was not properly recorded in his previous deposition Ex. PW-1/B. Coupled with the same he explained the manner in which incident in question had taken place, in sync with prosecution story when court question was put to him for giving details of incident in question. He categorically deposed that accused and driver of bus in question were abusing each other verbally and both of them attacked each other with fists. The driver of bus in question started bleeding from his nose. Said deposition was not challenged by way of suggestions to the contrary. This witness stuck to his version, to the effect that accused had beaten complainant, who was driver of bus in question at the relevant date, time and place, as mentioned in chargesheet. His testimony stood the asset test of cross examination. As such he was able to explain convincingly as to why he did not support prosecution in his previous statement recorded before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
26. PW2- Rajan Kumar was another witness, who deposed in his testimony that he had seen scuffling between driver of bus route no. 393 and one passenger on 29.05.2015 around 12 noon. He also testified that driver of the said bus was so injured in the said scuffle that blood started State Vs. Anuj Prasar (SC NO. 526/2022) Page 8 of 14 oozing out from his nose. To that extent, his testimony remained unchallenged and therefore, I believed his testimony to that extent only. This witness did not identify accused being the passenger, who had scuffled with driver of the concerned bus on the day, time and place in question.
27. PW5- Sahib was another public witness, who testified that accused had quarreled with the driver of bus in question, on 29.05.2015, in sync with prosecution story. In his cross-examination, he explained that accused had asked said driver to stop the bus on flyover, which said driver refused and that resulted in verbal abuses between accused and said driver. He also testified that during said verbal abuses, driver concerned was continuously driving the bus and bus stopped at Andrwej Ganj Bus Stop. Later on, physical fight ensued between accused and said driver. He was able to explain the colour of shirt worn by accused at the time of incident in question and the fact that police had reached at the spot within few minutes of being called. He refuted the suggestions based on false implication of accused and based on him deposing falsely. There was nothing, in his testimony, which was unreasonable or improbable. No suggestion was given to him regarding his absence at the scene of crime or him having ulterior motive to implicate accused for some specific reason. Therefore, based on said appreciation, I conclude that his testimony was trustworthy and reliable.
28. Besides above public witnesses, prosecution examined two police witnesses viz., PW3- Inspector Prem Singh & PW4- Inspector Nand Kishore. Both of them investigated the matter at different stages, during investigation.
State Vs. Anuj Prasar (SC NO. 526/2022) Page 9 of 1429. So far as PW3- Inspector Prem Singh was concerned, he had simply obtained complaint u/sec. 195 CrPC, from concerned authority and thereafter, had added sec. 333 IPC. Later on, he filed charge-sheet in the court. His investigation, was therefore limited to that extent only. He was not cross-examined with regard to the said investigation part and therefore, he was able to prove the facts, mentioned by him in his testimony, through his ocular version. I believed the said version to be trustworthy and reliable.
30. PW4- Inspector Nand Kishore had investigated the matter, in a substantial manner, as mentioned in 'para 5' of this judgment. In his testimony, he reiterated the manner in which he had conducted investigation, which was in sync with prosecution version. Same needs no repetition. His testimony was challenged by accused with regard to the time he had reached at the spot, the time he remained at the spot and the time when he conducted different parts of investigation. He was able to give convincing replies regarding said aspects. Besides that, he refuted the suggestions based on false preparation of documents and conducting investigation with ulterior motives. He refuted suggestions based on non- occurrence of incident in question and him deposing falsely. As such, there was nothing in his cross-examination, based on which his testimony can be doubted. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
31. Accused admitted documents u/sec. 24 CrPC, viz., Registration of FIR Ex.PA-1, certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PA-2, DD no.12A Ex.PA-3, DD no.13B Ex.PA-4, DD no.33B Ex.PA-5, MLC of State Vs. Anuj Prasar (SC NO. 526/2022) Page 10 of 14 Madan Singh Ex.PA-6, report of forensic medicine Ex.PA-7 and complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C Ex.PA-8, which only helped the cause of prosecution.
32. The net result is that, prosecution witnesses and evidence brought on record, were trustworthy and reliable.
33. Accused per contra, did not lead any evidence in his defence. His probable defence as per suggestions given to prosecution witnesses was that he was falsely implicated by police in this case. As such, he failed to explain as to why police had done so. He failed to explain, as to why prosecution witnesses had deposed against him, regarding his involvement in crime in question.
34. Coupled with the same, in his statement u/sec. 313 CrPC, accused claimed that he had boarded bus in question from Safdarjung Hospital and had deboarded it at Andrewz Ganj Bus Stop, which only supported prosecution story. His explanation that few boys were quarreling with the driver, did not appeal to me as he failed to give details of cause of said quarrel and details of those boys. It made his said explanation, vague and unbelievable. To make things worse, for him, he himself stated that public persons pointed out towards him regarding his involvement in the said quarrel with the driver of the bus, which only probablized the situation that it was he who had quarreled with driver of bus in question. Otherwise, why would public persons, would have pointed out towards him, regarding his involvement in quarrel with driver of bus in question. Ordinarily, public persons, do not do so. Accused failed to explain as to what were the State Vs. Anuj Prasar (SC NO. 526/2022) Page 11 of 14 exceptional circumstances which belied that ordinary approach of public persons in this case. Therefore, I disbelieved the version of accused, given in his statement u/sec. 313 CrPC.
35. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that public persons examined by prosecution were interested witnesses and their testimonies were full of contradictions. Said argument is not tenable as I have already appreciated the testimonies of public witnesses and have come to the conclusion that their testimonies are shorn of any doubts or improbability. Nothing has come on record, to show that said witnesses deposed against accused for some specific ulterior motive. Coupled with the same, contradictions as submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused were not major. This court had put court questions to PW1, who answered the same in a convicing manner, thereby removing the doubts, if any regarding veracity of his testimony.
36. Further, Ld. Counsel for accused argued that accused did not receive any injury in the scuffle with victim which improbablized prosecution story. Again, said argument is not tenable as non- receiving of injuries by accused, by itself did not justify the injuries sustained by victim. There is every possibility that victim was not able to cause an injury on the body of accused, during scuffle or said injury on the body of accused was superficial in nature, not visible from naked eyes.
37. Ld. Counsel for accused further argued that accused was acquitted by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate based on appreciation of testimonies of witnesses and therefore, it must benefit accused. That argument is State Vs. Anuj Prasar (SC NO. 526/2022) Page 12 of 14 dismissed as present trial before this court is a fresh trial, after commitment of the matter from the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. Evidence of witnesses recorded before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, is at lesser pedestrian, in comparison to the evidence recorded in this court.
38. Ld. Counsel for accused further argued that investigation was defective and complainant did not sign the complaint which made the prosecution story doubtful. Again, non-signing of complaint by complainant by itself did not make prosecution story doubtful as besides said complaint which is Mark A, there are ocular testimonies, medical evidence of victim and other record, which only support prosecution version. Non-signing of complaint by complainant, at the most appeared to be a mere human error, inadvertent in nature, which cannot be seen in isolation to other evidence, collected by prosecution.
39. So, arguments of Counsel for accused did not help the cause of accused.
Offence Made Out
40. It was proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused on 29.05.2015 around 12 pm, had voluntarily abused driver of bus in question, as he wanted the said driver to stop the bus on the south-ex flyover. Since, said bus driver was driving government DTC Bus, therefore, he was a public servant. The act of accused in asking said driver to stop the bus at the south-ex flyover, amounted to causing of voluntarily obstruction in the discharge of public function of that driver. Therefore, accused committed offence punishable u/sec. 186 IPC.
State Vs. Anuj Prasar (SC NO. 526/2022) Page 13 of 1441. Further, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the above mentioned day, time and place, accused had beaten the above mentioned public servant, who was discharging his official duty of driving bus in question. The said beatings, resulted in causing grievous hurt to the said driver, as per medical report Ex.PA-7. Therefore, accused committed offence punishable u/sec. 333 IPC.
42. Lastly, it was also proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the above mentioned day, time and place, accused abused and assaulted driver of bus in question, who was driving public bus and was a public servant and therefore, prevented him from exercising his duties as public servant. Therefore, accused committed offence punishable u/sec. 353 IPC.
43. Accused is therefore, convicted for offence punishable U/Sec.186/333/353 IPC.
Announced in the Open Court Today.
[PRASHANT SHARMA] ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi 06.10.2023 State Vs. Anuj Prasar (SC NO. 526/2022) Page 14 of 14