Delhi District Court
State vs Sachin on 31 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Ms. TWINKLE CHAWLA
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-04,
NEW DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Cr. Case No. -: 2324/2017
CNR No. -: DLND020217972016
FIR No. -: 73/2016
Police Station -: Inderpuri
Section(s) -: 186/353/332 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
SACHIN
S/o Sh. Sukhbir
R/o WZ-242, Dasghara Village,
Inderpuri, Delhi ......Accused Person
1.Name of Complainant :- SI Sanjay Panghal
2. Name of Accused Person :- Sachin
3. Offence complained of or :- 186/353/332 IPC proved
4. Plea of Accused Person :- Not Guilty
5. Date of Commission of :- 11.04.2016 offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 02.11.2016
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 12.01.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 31.01.2026
9. Final Order :- CONVICTED Present: Sh. Ankit, Ld. Additional PP for the State Sh. Yogesh Kumar and Sh. Nitin Kumar, Ld. Counsels for the Accused. Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla JUDGMENT Chawla Date:
2026.01.31 16:25:10 +0530 FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 1 of 19
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 11.04.2016 at around 12:15 PM, at the Dev Prakash Shashtri Marg, opposite Todapur Headquarters near Traffic Signal, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of police station Inderpuri, the Accused Sachin caused unlawful obstruction in the discharge of duty of SI Sanjay Panghal and also voluntarily caused hurt by beating him and tore his uniform.Hence, the present FIR was lodged for the offences punishable under Section 186/353/332 IPC, against the Accused.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed Accused and challan was presented in the court on 02.11.2016. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Accused was summoned to face trial on 02.11.2016.
3. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet was supplied to him in terms of section 207 of CrPC. On finding a prima facie case against the Accused person, charge under sections 186/353/332 IPC was framed against the Accused on 15.10.2018 for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial for the offences u/s 186/353/332 IPC, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the Accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- Ct. Sumer Singh (Eye-witness) PW2 :- SI Sanjay Panghal (Victim) Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 2 of 19 2026.01.31 16:25:18 +0530 PW3 :- SI Nirmala (Duty Officer) PW4 :- Ct. Vikas (IO Accompanying Witness) PW5 :- ACP Rajnikanth Awadhiya (Complainant qua 195 CrPC) PW6 :- SI Inderjeet Sharma (IO) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A Seizure memo of the Uniform Ex. PW2/A :- Statement of SI Sanjay Panghal Ex. PW2/B :- Site plan Ex. PW2/C :- Seizure Memo of the Traffic Challan Ex. PW2/D :- Seizure memo of Offending Vehicle Ex. PW2/E :- Arrest memo of the Accused Ex. PW2/F :- Memo of personal search of Accused Ex. P1 :- Superdarinama in relation to the offending vehicle Ex. P2 (Colly) :- Photographs of the offending vehicle Ex. P3 :- Original Traffic Challan alongwith its photocopy Ex. PW3/A :- Endorsement on Rukka Ex.PW3/B :- FIR (OSR) Ex. PW3/C :- Certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW3/D :- DD No. 19A dated 11.04.2016 Ex. PW5/A :- Complaint u/s 195 CrPC PW7/A :- Seizure Memo of the DL of the Accused
5. PW-1/ Ct. Sumer Singh deposed that on the day of the incident he was on duty with SI Sanjay Banwal. He was posted at PS- Inder Puri as constable. They were on traffic challan duty in front of Todapur Traffic, Headquarters, and had put barricades. At around 12.00 to 12.15 pm, one Eeco car bearing No. DL-9CAE-5814 came from the side of Inder Puri and was going towards Todapur; and the driver of the said car jumped the traffic signal which was red for his side. They signalled the driver to stop Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 3 of 19 Chawla Date:
2026.01.31 16:25:23 +0530 the vehicle and he stopped. Upon inquiry, name of the driver/Accused was revealed as Sachin. SI Sanjay informed the Accused that since he had jumped the red light, therefore, he will be challaned. Thereafter, SI Sanjay Panghal asked the Accused to pay Rs. 100/- as challan amount for jumping the red light. However, the Accused refused to pay the same by saying that he does not have Rs. 100/- with him. SI Sanjay Panghal informed the Accused that he would have to face the challan proceeding in the court if he does not do so; and asked him to hand over his license. The Accused gave his driving license, However, when the SI Sanjay was about to take the license, the Accused got angry and slapped him. Thereafter, scuffle took place between SI Sanjay and Accused and the Accused tore the uniform of SI Sanjay. Accused tried to flee away from the spot with the car. When they tried to stop the Accused, he dangerously drove his vehicle nearly hitting them, due to which SI Sanjay fell down on the road and sustained injuries on his hand. He correctly identified the uniform of SI Sanjay, which was torn at the pocket, i.e., Ex. PW1/A as well as the offending vehicle.
The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Accused. In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel of the Accused, he admitted that there were two ladies with the Accused in his car at the time of the incident. PW1 also denied the suggestion that since barricades were present on the road, it was not possible for the Accused to drive dangerously away from the spot. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing under the pressure of his senior i.e PW2.
6. PW-2/ SI Sanjay Panghal deposed that on 11.04.2016, he Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 4 of 19 Chawla Date:
2026.01.31 16:25:30 +0530 was posted at Maya Puri, Traffic Circle. When he was performing his duty at around 12:15 pm, near Todapur Traffic Headquarter he saw one vehicle bearing registration no. DL9CAE5814 coming from Inderpuri and going towards Todapur. The said vehicle jumped the red light. Thereafter, he stopped the said vehicle and Ct. Sumer who was on duty along with him got the said vehicle on the side of the road. PW2 informed the driver of the vehicle, namely Sachin that he had jumped the red light and asked him to handover his documents for challan. Thereafter, the Accused started arguing with PW2 and told him that he is from local Village Dasghara and no challan could be issued against him. He was asked to pay the challan of Rs.100/-. But he denied to pay the same and told PW-2 that he did not have the said amount. Thereafter, PW2 issued the traffic challan and seized his DL. The Accused slapped PW-2 and snatched his driving license. When the Accused tried to take back his driving license, he tore the PW2's uniform and he tried to hit him with his vehicle and he ran away from the spot. PW-2 fell down on the ground and thus suffered injury on both of his hands. He called at 100 number after, police came to the spot and recorded the statement. The uniform was seized by the IO Medical examination was got conducted at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.
The witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the Accused. In his cross examination by the Ld. counsel for the Accused, PW2 deposed that the police PCR came at 12.40 p.m. approximately and the PCR took him to Dr. RML Hospital, where his medical examination was done. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement at around 4 pm. He admitted that the Accused had stopped the vehicle, when signalled and thereafter gave his DL, as Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 5 of 19 Chawla Date:
2026.01.31 16:25:36 +0530 well. He denied the suggestion that since PW2 had wrongfully challaned the Accused for red light jumping (even though the light was green) due to lapse of judgment, PW2 himself had returned the DL back to the Accused. He also admitted that there were two other girls who were there in the car of the Accused at the time of the incident. He admitted that there was an argument which had taken place between PW-2 and the Accused. He denied the suggestion that he was asking for a bribe from the Accused. He denied the suggestion that he had procured a torn uniform from the police headquarters and falsely implicated the Accused.
7. PW3/SI Nirmala proved the registration of the FIR,lodging of DD No. 19A. She was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the Accused, despite opportunity.
8. PW4/Ct. Vikas deposed that on 11.04.2016, he alongwith IO/ASI Inderjeet reached at the spot i.e. Dev Prakash Shastri Marg near red Light opposite traffic head quarter, Todapur where they came to know that the injured was shifted to RML Hospital. When they met SI Sanjay/PW2, IO prepared the Rukka for registration of the FIR, and PW4 went to the PS for registration of the FIR. After registration of the FIR, he reached back at the spot, where the IO was already present. Thereafter, complainant handed over his torn clothes which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW1/A. IO also seized the copy of challan vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C. Thereafter, the Accused was found, the offending vehicle was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/D and the Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/E. He correctly identified the Accused and the torn uniform in court.
In the cross examination by Ld. Counsel of Accused, he deposed that the DD was received by the IO at about 1.00 PM.
Digitally FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 6 of 19 signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.01.31 16:25:44 +0530 After receiving the DD, PW4 along with the IO, reached at the spot. He was unsure about the number of persons who were present at the spot. However, when they reached, they learned that the injured was already taken to the hospital. None of those public persons disclosed in detail regarding the incident. At about 1.30 PM, they left the spot for the hospital and reached at the hospital at about 2.00 PM. Further, he stated that the uniform was already removed by the Complainant, at the time of its seizure by the IO. He also deposed that the Accused was not present at the spot and that he was arrested at 7:25 PM from his house.
9. PW-5/ACP Rajnikanth Awadhiya deposed that on 07.09.2016 he was posted as an Assistant Commissioner of Police, Traffic West District, Delhi. On that day, IO of the present matter arrived at his office with the documents including FIR, MLC and other relevant documents related to the present matter i.e. FIR No.73/2016 dated 11.04.2016 u/s 186/353/332 IPC and thereafter, PW5 gave the complaint u/s 195 CrPC, which is Ex. PW5/A. He was not cross-examined despite opportunity by the Accused.
10. PW-6/ SI Inderjeet Sharma deposed on the same lines as PW-4, and hence, his testimony is not being reiterated for the purposes of brevity. In addition, he deposed that he collected the MLC of the victim from the hospital. In the cross examination by Ld. Counsel of Accused, he deposed that the information was received via Duty Officer at about 01:00 P.M. He went to the spot of occurrence alongwith Ct. Vikas at about 01:20 Р.М. No public person was present at the spot and admitted that the spot of occurrence was a public place. No CCTV cameras were found installed at the place of occurrence.
11. PW7/ASI Rakesh Kumar deposed that he took the Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 7 of 19 Chawla Date:
2026.01.31 16:25:49 +0530 permission u/s 195 CrPC from the concerned ACP, i.e., Ex. PW5/A and that he also seized the driving license of the Accused, vide Ex. PW7/A. Thereafter, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same in court. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Accused.
12. Thereafter, Prosecution Evidence was closed on 25.10.2024, as all witnesses have been examined.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
13. The Statement of the Accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded by the Accused on 28.11.2024. The Accused stated that he had not jumped any red light. However, still he paid the challan amount of Rs. 100 to PW2/SI Sanjay Panghal and PW2 gave a receipt to the Accused as well. However, PW2/SI Sanjay Panghal asked for additional amount of Rs. 500 from the Accused and the Accused refused to give the same, and thereafter, the said officer started abusing the Accused. He further stated that PW2/SI Sanjay Panghal was having an altercation with a tempo driver nearby and that the Accused did not slap him or beat him. He chose not to lead any Defence Evidence. The matter was then listed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
14. I have heard the Ld. Addl. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the Accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
15. It is argued by the Ld. Addl. APP for the state that there is sufficient material on record to convict the Accused for the said offences.
Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.01.31 FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 8 of 19 16:25:55 +0530
16. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the Accused has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel has argued that main prosecution witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 have deposed contradictory details about the incident, no public persons have been examined, there is no CCTV footage covering the incident and faulty investigation has taken place and the prosecution has failed to prove the motivation of the Accused. Hence, nothing has come on record against the Accused. As such, it is prayed that the Accused be acquitted for the said offences.
17. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the Accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the Accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
18. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.04.2016, at about 12:15 pm at Dev Prakash Shashtri Marg, opposite Todapur Head Quarters near the traffic signal, the Accused caused unlawful obstruction in the discharge of duty of SI Sanjay Panghal and voluntarily caused hurt to him by beating him and tore his uniform. As such, the prosecution has submitted that the Accused has committed the offences punishable under Section 186/353/332 IPC.
19. For an offence punishable u/s 186 IPC, the prosecution must prove that:-
i) There was a public servant.
ii) The public servant was discharging public function.
Digitally
signed by
Twinkle
Twinkle Chawla
Chawla Date:
2026.01.31
16:25:59
+0530
FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 9 of 19
iii) The Accused voluntarily caused obstruction in the
discharge of such function.
iv) Complaint has been made in this regard to the court in
writing by the said public servant or a public servant to whom the above said public servant is administratively subordinate.
20. Further, for an offence punishable u/s 353 IPC, the prosecution must prove that:-
i) There was a public servant.
ii) The public servant was discharging his duty.
iii) The Accused voluntarily assaulted/used criminal force on
the public servant.
iv) Such act was done with the intention to deter the said
person from discharging his duty or was in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in lawful discharge of his duty.
21. Further, for an offence punishable u/s 332 IPC, the prosecution must prove that:-
i) There was a public servant. ii) The public servant was discharging his duty. iii) The Accused voluntarily caused hurt to the public servant. iv) Such act was done with the intent to deter the said person
from discharging his duty or was in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in lawful discharge of his duty.
22. In the present case, the victim SI Sanjay Panghal is a police officer, who was deputed as a ZO at the traffic circle of Rattanpuri Chowk, which included the Rattanpuri Chowk, Todapur light and Inderpuri light blocks. He was working under the direct supervision of the ACP Traffic/West District, Delhi.
Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 10 of 19 Chawla Date:
2026.01.31 16:26:05 +0530 Further, it is no longer res integra that a police official is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 IPC (reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Narain Musadi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, 1979 ACR SC 470, in this regard). Accordingly, the victim in the present case is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of IPC and hence the first ingredient of the aforesaid offences is satisfied in the present case.
23. Further, the charge-sheet in the present case has been filed along with the complaint of ACP Traffic West district, Delhi, which is Ex. PW5/A. On the basis of the said documents, Ld. Predecessor of this court had taken cognizance of the offences in the present case vide order dated 02.11.2016. Further the concerned ACP i.e., ACP Rajnikant Awadhiya has been examined as PW-5 and he has duly proved the complaint u/s 195 CrPC i.e., Ex. PW5/A. PW-5 was not cross-examined despite opportunity by Ld. Counsel for the Accused. Hence, the provision of Section 195 CrPC also stands complied with, as it is proved that the cognizance of the offence u/s 186 IPC was taken on the basis of a complaint u/s 195 CrPC of a public servant who is administratively superior to the victim in the present case.
24. The present case of the prosecution largely depends upon ocular testimony (of the victim and the eye-witness), supported by documentary evidence (in the form of MLC and other documents). The prosecution has examined the eye-witness/Ct. Sumer as PW1 and the victim/SI Sanjay Panghal as PW2. The case of the prosecution is that when PW1 and PW2 were on official duty at Todapur light, pursuant to deployment order dated 11.04.2016, i.e., Mark A, and SI Sanjay, was on interceptor duty, Digitally FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 11 of 19 signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.01.31 16:26:10 +0530 at around 12:00 to 12:15 PM, a vehicle (make EECO) bearing registration no. DL 9CAE 5814, came from the side of Inderpuri and was going towards Todapur, and it jumped the traffic signal which was red for his side. Thereafter, the driver of the said vehicle was signaled to stop; who complied and stopped the vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle is the Accused in the present case. Further, that when the victim PW2 asked the Accused to pay the challan amount of Rs. 100/-, the Accused refused to pay and PW2 asked him to hand over his driving license and the Accused handed over his driving license. Thereafter, when PW2 issued the challan, the Accused slapped the victim and snatched his driving license back from PW2. Further, when PW2 tried to take back the driving license from the Accused, the Accused tore the uniform of PW2 and tried to flee away from the spot in the car. At this time, the victim fell down on the road and sustained injuries on his hand. PW1 and PW2 have both deposed on the aforesaid lines. Further, the deployment order dated 11.04.2016 i.e., Mark A has also been brought on record by the prosecution. Hence, a combined reading of Mark A and the testimony of PW1 and PW2, it is proved that the victim/PW2 was discharging a public function (i.e., impounding the license of the Accused while issuing a challan in the course of interceptor duty at the traffic signal) at the time of the incident. The challan which was issued by PW2 to the Accused has also been brought on record vide Ex. PW2/C, i.e., Ex. P3. Perusal of Ex. P3 shows that the challan has been issued at 12:15 PM on 11.04.2016 in respect of vehicle bearing no. DL 9CAE 5814, at Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, at THQ Todapur in the name of the Accused, for commission of offence u/s 119/177 MVA (red light jumping) and the DL is mentioned as the document seized.
Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.01.31 FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 12 of 19 16:26:16 +0530 Further, Ct. Sumer/PW1 is shown as the witness in the said challan. The said challan Ex. P3 also supports the version of events narrated by PW2 and PW1. Further, the MLC of the victim, PW2 also indicates that an injury was inflicted on the hand of the victim, which was simple in nature. The torn uniform i.e., Ex. PW1/A, has also been produced on court and correctly identified by PW1 and PW2. The said torn uniform, Ex. PW1/A, shows that the uniform shirt is torn at the pocket. The fact that the DL was mentioned as a document seized in the challan, however, the same has been recovered from the Accused during investigation vide Ex-PW7/A, also supports the version of PW1 & PW2 that the impounded DL was snatched by the Accused from PW2.
25. Ld. Counsel for the Accused has submitted that the testimony of PW1 and PW2 cannot be relied upon as firstly, despite availability, public persons have not been examined, the two ladies who were sitting in the car of the Accused have neither been examined nor made witnesses, secondly, there are inconsistencies between the versions of PW1 and PW2, in asmuchas PW1 has stated that the Accused had slapped the victim when the victim was about to take the driving licence of the Accused, however PW2 has stated that he was slapped after the challan was issued and his DL was seized. Thirdly, Ld. Counsel for the Accused has submitted that since there were barricades present on the road at the time of incident, a fact admitted by both witnesses, it is improbable that the Accused could have sped away from the spot. Lastly, it is further stated that there was no motivation for the Accused to hit the police official, once the challan had been issued. On the basis of the said lacunae, Ld. Counsel for the Accused submits that the Accused deserves to be Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 13 of 19 Chawla Date:
2026.01.31 16:26:20 +0530 acquitted in the present case; as the Accused has been falsely implicated in the present case as PW-2 was seeking a bribe from the Accused.
26. It is a well settled proposition of the law that the testimony of the witnesses is to be weighed and not counted and a conviction can also be sustained upon sole testimony of the complainant without any independent corroboration.
27. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine SC 826, that "It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise". Similarly, in the case of Yakub Ismailbhai Patel v.
State of Gujarat, 2004 CRI. L.J. 4205 Supreme Courts, it was observed that: "The legal position in respect of the testimony of a solitary eye-witness is well-settled in a catena of judgments in as much as this Court has always reminded that in order to pass conviction upon it, such a testimony must be of a nature which inspires the confidence of the Court. While looking into such evidence this Court has always advocated the Rule of Caution and such corroboration from other evidence and even in the absence of corroboration if testimony of such single eye-witness inspires confidence then conviction can be based solely upon it. In the case on hand, the testimony of the solitary eye-witness stands corroborated by other circumstances and evidences and more particularly."
Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.01.31 16:26:26 +0530 FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 14 of 19
28. As such, the non-examination of public persons is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, it cannot be stated that police officials are not reliable witnesses and their testimony cannot be acted upon unless the same is corroborated by independent public witnesses. It is a matter of record that the police official namely PW2 is the victim in the present case and hence his testimony is to be viewed against the standards applicable to the testimony of a victim, especially because there is no allegation of previous animosity between the complainant/victim and the Accused in the present case. It is also not the case where the two persons, i.e., the victim and the Accused are known to each other. It is also a matter of common knowledge that members of the general public are reluctant to join investigation and testify in court. Hence, the testimony of a victim cannot be disregarded due to the apathy of the general public. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karamjit Singh v. State, AIR 2003 SC 1311 observed that:
"The testimony of the police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds."
29. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the above position in Girija Prasad v. State of MP, AIR 2007 SC 3106:
"It is well settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. It is quite Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 15 of 19 2026.01.31 16:26:31 +0530 possible that in a given case, a court of law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of complainant or a police official but it is not the law that the police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence".
30. In the case of Pramod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 6 SCC 588, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"This Court, after referring to State Of U.P v. Anil Singh . 1988 Supp SCC 686, State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652 and Ramjee Rai v. State of Bihar (2006) 13 SCC 229 has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State Of Haryana (2013) 6 SCC 595, 2013 AIR SCW 3102 that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 16 of 19 Chawla Date:
2026.01.31 16:26:35 +0530 the same. If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the Department of Police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence."
31. Thus, the court held that police testimony cannot be discarded solely on presumptive distrust; credibility must be assessed on the evidence's merits.
32. The testimony of the victim PW2 and the eye witness PW1 is further corroborated by DD No. 19 A i.e. Ex-PW3/D and the testimony of PW4 and PW6, who have deposed that after receiving DD no. 19 A, regarding a quarrel, they reached at the spot and found that the victim had already been taken to the RML Hospital and upon reaching the hospital PW2 was found in an injured state and was wearing torn uniform, which was handed over to the IO/PW6. The torn uniform, i.e. Ex. PW1/A has also been produced in court and correctly identified by PW1 and PW2. The said uniform reflects that the left pocket of the uniform has been torn, which is also consistent with the testimony of PW1 and PW2. Further the DD no. 19 A corroborates that a PCR call was received at around 01:00 PM noting that there had been a quarrel with the traffic staff in front of Todapur Head Quarters, which is the spot of incident in the present case. Further the MLC reflects that simple injury has been inflicted on the hand of the victim, which also corroborates his version that he had fallen on the road, when the Accused drove dangerously and sped away his car. Further, as regards the hurt caused by the Accused, it is no longer res integra Digitally signed by Twinkle FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 17 of 19 Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.01.31 16:26:40 +0530 that a slap may also constitute hurt, if it causes pain. In the present case, PW-2 has deposed that he was slapped by the Accused and due to the dangerous driving of the Accused, he fell down on the road and his hand got injured. Hence, the testimony combined with medical evidence shows that hurt was caused to the victim by the Accused. Further, the torn shirt reflects that criminal force was used by the Accused on the body of the victim. Further, minor inconsistencies between the testimony of PW1 and PW2 cannot be considered to be fatal to the case of the prosecution, as the incident took place on 11.04.2016 and their testimonies were recorded in 2019, almost after 3 years and it is natural for certain discrepancies to creep in on account of time. Further, the variation in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 as to order of events which led to the conflict (i.e., with PW1 deposing that while taking the DL from Accused, the Accused had hit PW1 and PW2 deposing that the DL was handed over by the Accused, however, after challan was issued, he snatched the DL from PW2 and during this time, the scuffle took place), can be due to normal errors of observation and normal errors of memory due to lapse of time and such discrepancies and errors cannot be accepted as material discrepancies touching the core of the case, i.e., the fact that the Accused assaulted PW2 when the latter was in discharge of a public function. Additionally, while the Accused in his statement u/s 313 CrPC stated that he had paid the challan amount of Rs. 100 and he was issued a receipt by PW-2, the said receipt has never been brought on record by the Accused, during the cross- examination of the witnesses. No defence evidence has been led in the present case as well. On the contrary, in the suggestions put to PW2 in the cross examination, the defence taken by the Accused Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 18 of 19 2026.01.31 16:26:46 +0530 is that he was wrongly challaned by PW2 and hence, PW2 had returned the DL.
33. Accordingly, from the unimpeached testimony of the victim/PW2 and the eye witness/PW1, it is conclusively established on record that the Accused voluntarily obstructed SI Sanjay Panghal assaulted him and used criminal force against him when he was on duty as a public servant and caused hurt to him and thus the prosecution has successfully established its case beyond a shadow of doubt that the Accused has committed offences punishable under Section 186/332/353 IPC. Accordingly, the Accused Sachin is hereby found guilty. He stands convicted of the offences punishable u/s 186/332/353 IPC. Announced in open court on 31.01.2026 in the presence of the Accused.
The judgment contains 19 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by TwinkleTwinkle Chawla Date: Chawla 2026.01.31 16:26:51 +0530 (Twinkle Chawla) JMFC-04/PHC/ND 31.01.2026 FIR No. 73/2016 State vs. Sachin Page 19 of 19