Delhi District Court
State vs . Dilbagh Singh & Anr. 16:25:12 +0530 on 10 August, 2018
Digitally signed
by VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV MEHTA
MEHTA Date:
2018.08.10
State Vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. 16:25:12 +0530
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV MEHTA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH) 05,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus Dilbagh Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 826/13
PS Mehrauli
U/s.186/353/332/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1 Serial No. of the case : 2033621/2016
2 Date of commission : 27.10.2013
3 Date of institution of the case : 20.05.2014
4 Name of complainant : Ct. Tejpal
5 Name of accused : (i) Dilbagh Singh S/o. Lt.
Sh. Bhim Singh, R/o. H. No.
202, Adhikari Mohalla,
Village Maidangarhi,
Mehrauli, New Delhi.
(Abated)
(ii) Dalbir Singh S/o. Sh. Lt.
Sh. Bhim Singh, R/o.H. No.
202, Adhikari Mohalla,
Village Maidangarhi,
Mehrauli, New Delhi.
6 Offence complained of : U/s.186/353/332/34 IPC
7 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8 Arguments heard on : 30.07.2018
9 Final order : Convicted U/s. 186/353/34
IPC.
Acquitted U/s. 332 IPC.
10 Date of judgment : 10.08.2018
FIR No. 826/13 PS Mehrauli 1 of 11
State Vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1 The brief facts of the case are that on 27.10.2013 at about 11.45
am in front of H. No. 202, Adhikari Mohalla, Maidangarhi, New Delhi both accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed the complainant Ct. Tejpal a public servant in discharge of his public functions. Further, both accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted or used criminal force to the complainant as public servant namely Ct. Tejpal and tore his uniform with intent to prevent or deter him from exercising his duties as public servant and caused simple injury on his person. Thereafter, the present FIR No.826/13 got registered against both accused persons namely Dilbagh Singh and Dalbir Singh for offences U/s.186/353/33/34 IPC.
CHARGE 2 The charge was framed U/s. U/s.186/353/33/34 IPC on 04.09.2014 wherein, both accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, during trial accused Dilbagh Singh expired and proceedings qua him were abated vide order dated 05.05.2018.
EVIDENCE LED BY PROSEUCTION 3 The prosecution examined four witnesses to prove their case: -
FIR No. 826/13 PS Mehrauli 2 of 11
State Vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr.
PWs Name Designation
PW-1 Ct. Tej Singh complainant
PW-2 HC Subhash Assisted the IO
PW-3 ASI Radhey Shyam Duty Officer
PW-4 SI Ram Phal Singh IO the present case
4 The prosecution has relied upon the following documents: -
Srl. Exhibited by Documents Exhibited as
Nos
1. PW-1 Ct. statement of complainant Ex.PW-1/A
Tej Singh Disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW-1/DA
Dilbagh Singh
2. PW-2 SI Arrest Memo & Personal Search Ex.PW-2/A &
Sohan Lal Memo in respect of accused Dalbir Ex.PW-2/B
Singh respectively
Disclosure Statement of accused Ex.PW-2/C
Dalbir Singh
3 PW-3 ASI Copy of FIR No. 826/13 Ex.PW-3/A
Radhey Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW-3/B
Shyam
4 PW-4 SI Rukka Ex.PW-4/A
Ram Phal Arrest Memo & Personal Search Ex.PW-4/B &
Singh Memo in respect of accused Ex.PW-4/C
Dilbagh Singh respectively.
Seizure Memo in respect of shirt of Ex.PW-4/D complainant Permission regarding Section 195 Ex.PW-4/E Cr.P.C. from the ACP concerned Site Plan Ex.PW-4/F Shirt Ex.S FIR No. 826/13 PS Mehrauli 3 of 11 State Vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr.
5 PW-1 Ct. Tej Singh deposed that on 27.10.2013, he was on patrolling duty at PS Mehrauli and on that day, during his patrolling, he found that at H. No. 202 Adhikari Maholla, Maidangarhi traffic was jamed because one tempo was stationed and some people were quarreling with tempo driver. PW -1 further deposed that he inquired about the situation from people present there after which, accused persons namely Dilbagh and Dalbir Singh came forward and told him that the driver had damaged stairs of the house of Dilbagh, however on being told by PW-1, accused Dilbagh gave the key of the tempo to the driver of tempo. As per PW-1, accused Dilbagh had given key to the driver and the driver moved the tempo. PW-1 further stated that accused Dilbagh came to him and asked him as to who will pay the money for damages of stairs and then, accused Dalbir, who was drunk came and caught hold of him and tore his uniform, after which PCR came and HC Mann Singh filled the form No. 100 Eagle 25 PCR. PW-1 then deposed that IO SI Ramphal came at the spot and recorded his statement and same was proved as Ex.PW1/A and the accused Dilbagh was apprehended and taken to PS. Ct. PW -1 further stated that Subhash took him to the Safdarjung hospital, where he was medically examined.
PW-1 correctly identified both the accused persons in the court.
6 PW-2 HC Subhash deposed that on 05.11.2013, he was posted as Ct. at PS Mehrauli and on that day, SI Ramphal arrested the accused Dalbir Singh vide memo Ex. PW-2/A and also conducted personal search of the accused vide memo Ex. PW-2/B and SI Ramphal also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Dalbeer Singh vide Ex.
FIR No. 826/13 PS Mehrauli 4 of 11 State Vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. PW-2/C.
PW-2 correctly identified accused Dalbeer Singh in the court.
7 PW-3 ASI Radhey Shyam deposed that on 27.10.2013, he was posted as Duty Officer in PS Mehrauli and on that day, his duty hours were from 08.00 A.M. to 4.00 P.M. and at about 01.45 p.m., Ct. Sandeep came to PS and handed over a rukka to him for registration of case sent by SI Ramphal and on the basis of rukka, he registered the FIR bearing No. 826/13 and proved the same as Ex.PW-3/A and made endorsement on rukka, which was proved as Ex.PW-3/B.
8. PW-4 SI Ram Phal Singh deposed that on 27.10.2013, he was posted as SI at PS Mehrauli and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. and at about 12.05 p.m. he had received the DD No. 23-A regarding quarrel at Adhikari Mohalla Near Shiv Mandir, Maidangarhi, New Delhi and on receipt of the same, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep went to the spot and met complainant Ct. Tej Pal and accused Dilbagh there.
PW-4 further stated that they came to know that accused Dalvir had already fled away from the spot and searched for the eye witnesses at the spot but did not meet anyone there, after which, he recorded statement of the complainant Tej Pal and on the basis thereof, he prepared rukka and proved the same as Ex.PW-4/A. PW-4 further stated that he had arrested accused Dil Bagh Singh vide Memo Ex.PW-4/B and also conducted his personal search vide Memo Ex.PW-4/C and also got conducted medical examination of accused Dilbagh Singh as well as FIR No. 826/13 PS Mehrauli 5 of 11 State Vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr.
complainant and had also recorded disclosure statement of Dilbagh Singh. PW-4 further sated that he seized the shirt of the complainant vide Memo Ex.PW-4/D and deposited the same in Mallkhana, PS Mehrauli and on 05.11.2013 , he formally arrested accused Dalvir Singh and conducted his personal search, as accused Dalvir Singh had already been granted anticipatory bail from the concerned Court after which he had also obtained the permission regarding Section 195 Cr.P.C. from the ACP concerned, which stands proved as Ex.PW-4/E PW-4 proved the site plan, which he prepared at the instance of complainant as Ex.PW-4/F and also recorded statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet in the court PW-4 correctly identified the shirt Ex.S to be of the complainant, which was seized by him during investigation.
PW-4 correctly identified the accused Dalvir Singh in the Court.
9 Thereafter, PE was closed on 10.07.2018 and the matter was listed for recording of statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. of accused.
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S. 313 CR.P.C. 10 Statement of accused U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 30.07.2018, wherein he opted not to lead DE and the matter was listed for final arguments.
FIR No. 826/13 PS Mehrauli 6 of 11 State Vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. FINAL ARGUMENTS 11 Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have
given consistent depositions and have proved the case of the prosecution beyond doubt, therefore, accused Dalbir Singh is liable to be convicted.
The counsel for accused has argued that there are serious inconsistencies and infirmities in the deposition of prosecution witnesses and therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused Dalbir Singh beyond doubt and he is liable to be acquitted.
LEGAL PROVISIONS 12 Section 186 IPC is stated as under : -
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.
This is a general section and is applicable in every case where a public servant is obstructed in the discharge of his functions. This section does not deal with obstruction of any public servant or of any person but with the obstruction of a proceeding conducted by a public servant.
This section requires two essentials:-
(I) Voluntary obstruction to a public servant FIR No. 826/13 PS Mehrauli 7 of 11 State Vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr.
(II) Such obstruction must be in the discharge of public functions of such public servant.
Sections 186 and 353 IPC: Distinction- Sections 186 and 353 IPC relate to two distinct and separate offences. The ingredients of two offences are not the same. Whereas section 186 applies to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, section 353 IPC requires assault or use of criminal force. The quality of the two offences is also different. An offence under section 353 IPC is cognizable, but an offence under section 186 IPC is non cognizable.
Voluntarily obstructs- the use of the word 'voluntarily' indicates that the legislature contemplated the commission of some overt act of obstruction, and did not intend to render penal mere passive conduct. The word 'obstruction' means actual obstruction, i.e. actual resistance or obstacle put in the way of a public servant. The work implies the use of criminal force and mere threats or threatening language or mere abuse are not sufficient.
In the discharge of his public functions:- Public functions contemplated by this section mean legal or legitimately authorized public functions, and are not intended to cover any act, that a public functionary may choose to take upon himself to perform. It must be shown that the obstruction or resistance was offered to a public servant in the discharge of his duties or public functions, as authorized by law. The mere fact of a FIR No. 826/13 PS Mehrauli 8 of 11 State Vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr.
public servant believing that he was acting in the discharge of his duties will not be sufficient to make resistance or obstruction to him amount to an offence.
Section 332 IPC is stated as under : -
Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty :-
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with itnent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in 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 three years, or with fine, or with both.
COURT OBSERVATIONS
13 On the basis of material on record and after hearing the submissions of both Ld. Defence Counsel and Ld. APP, this Court makes the following observations: -
OFFENCE U/S. 332 IPC
a) To prove offence u/s. 332 IPC against the accused, the prosecution must prove first of all that hurt was caused to the complainant.
In his examination-in-chief, PW-1 Ct. Tej Singh, the complainant FIR No. 826/13 PS Mehrauli 9 of 11 State Vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr.
has no where stated that he sustained injuries as a result of the act of the accused persons. The complainant has only stated that accused Dalbir, who was drunk came towards him and caught hold off him and tore his uniform. Therefore, there is no mention of any hurt being caused to the complainant. Therefore, the offence U/s. 332 cannot be proved against the accused Dalbir Singh and therefore, he is acquitted for the same.
OFFENCE U/S. 353 & 186 IPC
a) Offences U/s. 353 IPC and 186 IPC punishes any voluntarily act, which obstructs public servant from discharging his duties. To prove offence U/s. 353 IPC, it must be proved that assault or criminal force was used to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.
b) In the present case, the testimony of the complainant Ct. Tejpal is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused as he has categorically stated that accused Dalbir Singh in a drunken state caught hold off him and tore his uniform.
c) The testimony of the complainant finds further corroboration from the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses.
d) The prosecution also produce the case property i.e shirt of the complainant, which was found in a torn state, therefore, the testimony of the complainant finds further corroboration from the recovered case FIR No. 826/13 PS Mehrauli 10 of 11 State Vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr.
property.
e) The complainant in his examination-in-chief has stated that there was a dispute going on between the accused persons and a Tempo Driver, which was causing traffic jam and when he went to clear the situation, the accused persons obstructed him while he was performing his duties.
The accused persons have not disputed the factum of presence of the Tempo Driver and the dispute that arose between them and the Tempo Driver. Therefore, part of the testimony of the complainant has been admitted by the accused persons themselves.
f) The MLC placed on record also shows that there was a scuffle after which the complainant was taken to Safdarjung Hospital. Also, the testimony of the complainant has remained unrebutted and the defence has not been able to point out loopholes/infirmities in the testimony of PW-1 Ct. Tej Singh.
14 In view of the abovesaid observations, this Court finds that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of accused Dalbir Singh qua offence U/s. 186/353/34 IPC and accordingly convicts the accused Dalbir Singh for the same.
Let accused Dalbir Singh be heard on point of quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open (VAIBHAV MEHTA )
court on 10.08.2018 MM-5 (South), Saket Courts
New Delhi
FIR No. 826/13 PS Mehrauli 11 of 11