Delhi District Court
State vs Ramo on 24 February, 2012
FIR No. 225/00 PS Subzi Mandi U/S 186/332/353 IPC S/v Ramo IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ GAUR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIII, NORTH, DELHI Brief reasons for the judgment in the case with following particulars FIR No. 225/00 PS Subzi Mandi U/S 186/332/353 IPC. State V/S Ramo C. No. 4075/T U. ID No. 02401R0169992000 Date of Institution: 19.12.2000 Date of commission of offence 08.06.2000 Name of the Complainant Dr. Vandana Gupta W/o Sh. Satish Gupta, r/o 148, Vaishali, Pitampura, Delhi. Name and address of accused Ramo @ Samo w/o Sh. Tejpal, r/o Qr. No. 33, Double Storey, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi. Offence complained of U/S 186/332/353 IPC. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty Final Order Acquitted. Date of reserve for orders 24.02.2012 Date for announcing the orders 24.02.2012. C/No. 4075/T U. ID No. 02401R0169992000 Page No. 1 of 6 FIR No. 225/00 PS Subzi Mandi U/S 186/332/353 IPC S/v Ramo J U D G M E N T :
Brief Facts
1. The accused was chargesheeted u/s 186/332/353 IPC with allegations that on 08.06.2000 at about 03.00 PM at HRH building, Gblock, she voluntarily obstructed complainant, Dr. Vandana Gupta, Sr. Resident Doctor in Department of Radiology (a public servant) while she was performing ultrasound in discharge of her public duty and accused further assaulted / used criminal force against the complainant, a public servant while she was discharging her duty and voluntarily caused hurt upon her person to prevent / deter her from discharging her duties. On the basis of statement of complainant, the present FIR was got registered. During investigation, the police arrested the accused, carried out investigation and filed challan in the Court.
2. After necessary compliances, charge u/s 186/332/353 IPC was framed against the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
C/No. 4075/T U. ID No. 02401R0169992000 Page No. 2 of 6 FIR No. 225/00 PS Subzi Mandi U/S 186/332/353 IPC S/v Ramo Trial
3. To prove the charge, prosecution examined six witnesses in total whose testimonies are touched upon in brief as under:
(i) PW1 Dr. Vandana is the complainant in the present case who supported the prosecution case qua her complaint and proved the same as Ex.PW1/A. She was examined in part and her further examination in chief was deferred. Her examination in chief could not be completed.
(ii) PW2 HC Jai Singh is the duty officer who deposed about the registration of FIR and proved the same as Ex.PW2/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW2/B.
(iii) PW3 W/ASI Anita deposed that she along with SI Surya Prakash went to HRH and joined Dr. Vandana in the investigation.
She proved the arrest and personal search memos of the accused as Ex.PW3/A & PW3/B respectively.
(iv) PW4 SH. K.V. Singh is the Record Clerk from HRH who has proved the MLC No. 7023/2000 of patient Dr. Vandana Gupta as Ex.PW4/A.
(v) PW5 Dr. Debasish Panigrahi gave the opinion about the nature of injury on the MLC Ex.PW4/A of Dr. Vandana as simple. C/No. 4075/T U. ID No. 02401R0169992000 Page No. 3 of 6 FIR No. 225/00 PS Subzi Mandi U/S 186/332/353 IPC S/v Ramo
(vi) PW6 SI Surya Prakash deposed that on receipt of DD no. 16A Ex.PW6/A, he along with Ct. Radhey Shyam reached at HRH and collected the MLC of Dr. Vandana. He received the complaint Ex.PW1/A of the complainant and made his endorsement on the same which is Ex.PW6/B and he prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. He also proved the arrest memo of the accused as Ex.PW3/A. He obtained the complaint u/s 195 CrPC from the Addl. Medical Supdt. Dr. Umesh tyagi which is Ex.PW6/C. He further deposed that after recording the statement of witnesses, the challan was sent to Court through SHO. Thereafter, the PE was closed and matter was listed for statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC.
Statement of accused and defence
4. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused U/S 313 CrPC was recorded. She stated that she was innocent and has been falsely implicated. She further stated that she had neither obstructed nor assaulted or used criminal force against the complainant Dr. Vandana but the complainant Dr. Vandana came out of the ultrasound room, caught hold her hair and assaulted her in the corridor in the presence of other patients and hospital staff. She did not choose to lead any evidence in her defence.
C/No. 4075/T U. ID No. 02401R0169992000 Page No. 4 of 6 FIR No. 225/00 PS Subzi Mandi U/S 186/332/353 IPC S/v Ramo Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions:
5. The statement of PW1 could not be concluded as her examination was deferred. Thereafter, her presence could not be secured despite summoning through IO as well as DCP and she remained untraceable. All the efforts put in by the Court as well as the prosecution to secure her presence went in vain. The net effect is that her statement cannot be read in evidence as the accused has been deprived of her right to crossexamine PW1.
The remaining evidence led by the prosecution could be of corroborative value, in case, the evidence of PW1 could be read. However, their evidence, even if taken cumulatively, is insufficient to prove the charges in absence of the statement of the complainant.
Conclusion
6. There is no evidence on record to show that accused on 08.06.2000 at about 03.00 PM at HRH building, Gblock, voluntarily obstructed complainant, Dr. Vandana Gupta, Sr. Resident Doctor in Department of Radiology (a public servant) while she was performing ultrasound in discharge of her public duty and accused further assaulted / used criminal C/No. 4075/T U. ID No. 02401R0169992000 Page No. 5 of 6 FIR No. 225/00 PS Subzi Mandi U/S 186/332/353 IPC S/v Ramo force against the complainant, a public servant while she was discharging her duty and voluntarily caused hurt upon her person to prevent / deter her from discharging her duties. The evidence available on record is highly insufficient to record a finding of guilt against the accused and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge U/S 186/332/353 IPC for want of evidence. For want of evidence, accused Ramo is acquitted for the offences charged against her. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Neeraj Gaur)
today i.e. on 24.02.2012 Metropolitan Magistrate III(N)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
C/No. 4075/T
U. ID No. 02401R0169992000 Page No. 6 of 6
FIR No. 225/00 PS Subzi Mandi U/S 186/332/353 IPC S/v Ramo
24.02.2012
Pr: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused on bail.
Final arguments heard.
Vide my separate Judgment announced in the open court today, the accused is acquitted for the offence charged against her.
Accused prays for extension of her Bail Bond for six months for the purpose of Section 437A CrPC. Request is allowed and B/B and surety Bond of the accused are extended for six months.
File be consigned to record room.
(Neeraj Gaur) MMIII/North Delhi 24.02.2012 C/No. 4075/T U. ID No. 02401R0169992000 Page No. 7 of 6