Delhi District Court
State vs . Bharat Bhushan & Ors. on 15 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAMIKSHA GUPTA
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
South West District; Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
Date of Institution : 04.12.2017
Final Arguments heard on : 01.11.2022
Date of Judgment : 15.11.2022
In the matter of :
State Vs. Bharat Bhushan & Ors.
FIR No. 92/2016
PS : Sector-23 Dwarka
U/s: 186/353/506/34
1. Regn. No. of Case : 9616/2017
2. Name of accused persons : 1. Bharat Bhushan
S/o Harpal Singh
H. No. C-106, VPO Chawla,
Delhi
2. Ram Chander
S/o Dayanand
H. No. C-106, VPO Chawla,
Delhi
3. Devender Shokhanda
S/o Jai Bhagwan
H. No. C-109, Pachhaya
Mohalla, VPO Chawla, Delhi
3. Offence charged : 186/353/506/34 IPC
4. Plea of accused persons : Not guilty.
State Vs. Bharat Bhushan & others
FIR No. 92/16 /PS Sector 23 Dwarka
Page No.1 of 14
5. Final Order : Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of prosecution that on 17.03.2016 at about 03:30 p.m. at Dhoolsiras police picket, Sec 24, Dwarka, Delhi accused Bharat Bhushan along with co- accused Ram Chander and Devender Shokhanda, voluntarily obstructed Ct. Mahesh and Ct. Vicky when they were at picket duty and also assaulted them using criminal force against them. They further threatened to kill them.
Thus, prosecution has set up a case u/s 186/353/506/34 IPC against all accused persons.
2. On the basis of investigation carried out by the police, charge sheet was filed in the Court and copy of the same was supplied to accused persons, after they were summoned vide order dated 04.12.2017.
3. On the basis of charge sheet, charge for committing offences punishable under Section 186/353/506/34 IPC against all accused persons was framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses, who are as under:
State Vs. Bharat Bhushan & others FIR No. 92/16 /PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.2 of 14 Sr.No Name Nature of Evidence
1. PW-1/Ct. Mahesh Complainant/victim
2. PW-2/Ct. Vicky Victim/Eye witness
3. PW3/ Ct. Rajpal Witness who got the FIR registered.
4. PW4/ ASI Nirmala Duty officer
5. PW5 / ACP Rajinder Singh Filed complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC
6. PW6 / SI Kamlesh Kumar Filed charge sheet in Court.
7. PW7 / SI Jagdish IO
5. Prosecution has relied upon the following documents:
S. No. Exhibits Documents 1. Ex.PW 1/A complaint 2. Ex.PW 1/B Arrest memo of accused Bharat Bhushan 3. Ex.PW 1/C Arrest memo of accused Ram Chander 4. Ex.PW 1/D Arrest memo of accused Devender Shokinder 5. Ex. PW1/E Seizure memo of Scorpio car 6 Ex. PW1/F Site plan
7. Ex.P1 (colly) Photographs of the vehicle
4. Ex.PW 2/A Personal search memo of accused Devender Shokinder
5. Ex.PW 2/B Personal search memo of accused Ram Chander
5. Ex.PW 2/C Personal search memo of accused Bharat Bhushan
6. Ex.PW4/A FIR
7. Ex.PW4/B Endorsment on the rukka by ASI Nirmala
8. Ex.PW4/C Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act
9. Ex.PW5/A Complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC State Vs. Bharat Bhushan & others FIR No. 92/16 /PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.3 of 14
10. Ex.PW7/A DD No. 19A
11. Ex.PW7/B Endorsement of SI Jagdish on the statement of Ct. Mahesh
10. Ex.PW7/C Superdaginama of Scorpio Car
11. Ex.PW7/D Panchnama of vehicle
6. Thereafter, PE was closed and statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, wherein all accused persons claimed that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case as they refused to pay the illegal amount demanded by the complainants.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. To establish guilt of accused under Section 186 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the following components:-
(i) Victim was a public servant;
(ii) The said public servant was acting in discharge of his public functions;
(iii) The accused voluntarily obstructed the public servant in lawful discharge of his public functions.
Similarly, to prove the charge under Section 353 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the following components:-
(i) Assault or use of criminal force by the State Vs. Bharat Bhushan & others FIR No. 92/16 /PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.4 of 14 accused,;
(ii) Such assault/ use of criminal force must be against a public servant who is at the time engaged in execution of his duties as such public servant;
(iii) Such assault/ use of criminal force should be with the intention of preventing public servant from discharging his duty.
Similarly, to prove the charge under Section 506 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the following components:-
(i) Accused must threaten the victim with injury to his property, person or reputation;
(ii) Such threat must cause alarm to that person or cause him to do something which he is not legally bound to do.
9. The evidence of prosecution witnesses in the present case has to be examined against this legal position.
PW-1 Ct. Mahesh (complainant) deposed that he was on duty at Dhoolsiras picket on 17.03.2016. At about 03:30 p.m., one Scorpio Car bearing No HR 99 WC1639 came from Dwarka side which was signalled to State Vs. Bharat Bhushan & others FIR No. 92/16 /PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.5 of 14 stop by him. When the driver (accused Bharat Bhushan) stopped the car, he started abusing him and refused to show the documents of the vehicle. After that he came outside and caught hold of collar of PW-1. The other two persons sitting inside the car (co-accused Devender and Ram Chander) also got out and got into a scuffle with PW-1 and Ct. Vicky (2nd complainant) and said 'tum jaise police waale bahut dekhe hein, tumhari bimari theek kar denge, tumhe pata nahi mera gaon Chhawla hai'. He further threatened to call 150 people from his village.
Thereafter, PW-1 called the PS and IO alongwith other staff came at the spot. Accused persons were still scuffling with complainants (PW-1 and PW-2) when the IO reached the spot. Statement of PW-1 was recorded by the IO and ruqqa was given to Ct. Rajpal for registration of FIR. When Ct. Rajpal came back to the spot with a copy of FIR, IO arrested all accused vide arrest memos Ex.PW-1/B, Ex.PW-1/C and Ex.PW-1/D. IO also seized the Scorpio car vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/E and prepared site plan Ex.PW-1/F. Thereafter, all accused were taken to DDU Hospital.
During cross-examination, the witness admitted that a duty roster regarding picket duty is maintained at every police station. He further stated that his hours of duty on 17.03.2016 were from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. However, copy of such register to show his duty at the said picket State Vs. Bharat Bhushan & others FIR No. 92/16 /PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.6 of 14 was not placed on record. He denied the suggestion that he illegally stopped the accused persons to extract money. He further stated that the vehicle of accused persons reached at the picket around 03:30/03:45 p.m. and denied the suggestion that accused persons showed him the driving licence , invoice and other documents provided to them at the time of purchasing the vehicle. He further denied the suggestion that accused informed him that RC of the said Scorpio Car was not provided by the authority as the same was purchased on 28.02.2016. He denied the suggestion that he demanded illegal gratification (kharcha-paani) from the accused. He denied the suggestion that the picket in question was illegally maintained by him to extort money. He stated that the police station was informed by him through phone and not through the wireless set as the signals were weak. He stated that public persons had gathered at the spot later on but nobody was made a witness. IO SI Jagdish and Ct. Rajpal arrived at the spot within 10-15 minutes of making the call. He deposed that call was made sometime after 4 p.m. but could not recall the exact time. He denied the suggestion that all proceedings were conducted in the PS. He could not recall as to what documents were prepared at the spot but stated that he had signed the site plan and arrest memos at the spot. He could not recall the number of patrol vehicle which had reached the spot. State Vs. Bharat Bhushan & others FIR No. 92/16 /PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.7 of 14 PW-2 Ct. Vicky (complainant) deposed that he was on duty at Dhoolsiras picket on 17.03.2016. At about 03:30 p.m., one Scorpio Car bearing No HR 99 WC1639 came from Dwarka side and the same was stopped for checking by PW-1 Ct. Mahesh. Accused Bharat Bhushan, who was driving the Car started abusing Ct. Mahesh and caught hold of his collar. Accused Devender and Ram Chander, thereafter, got out of the Car and behaved rudely with him and said that they had seen many police persons like him and that they would take care of him. Accused Ram Chander said 'mera gaon Chhawla hai aur mein udhar se 100-150 logon ko bula lunga'. Thereafter, the complainants informed the PS. IO SI Jagdish came to the spot and arrested the accused and further recorded the statement of PW-2.
During cross-examination, the witness admitted that a duty roster regarding picket duty is maintained at every police station. He further stated that his hours of duty on 17.03.2016 were from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. However, copy of such register to show his duty at the said picket was not placed on record. He denied the suggestion that he illegally stopped the accused persons to extract money. He further stated that the vehicle of accused persons reached at the picket around 03:30/03:45 p.m. and denied the suggestion that accused persons showed him the driving licence, invoice and other documents State Vs. Bharat Bhushan & others FIR No. 92/16 /PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.8 of 14 provided to them at the time of purchasing the vehicle. He further denied the suggestion that accused informed him that RC of the said Scorpio Car was not provided by the authority as the same was purchased on 28.02.2016. He deposed that Ct. Mahesh/PW-1 informed the PS by phone at about 04:15 p.m. but did not send information on wireless set as first information goes to the Control Room and then to the concerned PS. No member from the public was joined as a witness. He denied the suggestion that all proceedings were conducted at the PS and IO SI Jagdish and Ct. Rajpal did not reach the spot. He could not depose as to the documents which were prepared at the spot and further stated that he did not sign any document at the spot. He further stated that accused were taken to the PS in a government gypsy but could not recall the number. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO when he was called in the PS in the evening.
PW-3 Ct. Rajpal stated that he received DD No.19-A at about 02:30 p.m. on 17.03.2016 regarding obstruction of police officials by some persons. Thereafter, he reached the spot alongwith SI Jagdish. Thereafter tehrir was prepared and given to him for registration of FIR. He went to PS Dwarka Sector 23, got the FIR registered and came back to the spot. He, thereafter, handed over copy of FIR and ruqqa to SI Jagdish who seized the State Vs. Bharat Bhushan & others FIR No. 92/16 /PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.9 of 14 Scorpio car and arrested the accused. Thereafter, he went to DDU hospital for getting conducted the medical of accused persons. After the medical examination, he took them back to the PS and handed their custody to the IO.
During cross examination, he deposed that he reached the spot by his personal car but could not recall the registration number. 7-8 people were present at the spot when he reached there. He remained at the spot for around 15-20 minutes but could not recall if statement of any public witness was recorded. He denied the suggestion that he did not take the complainant to the hospital for medical examination. He further deposed that personal search memos, arrest memos and seizure memo was prepared by the IO in the PS. PW-4 ASI Nirmala deposed regarding registration of FIR and was not cross examined despite opportunity.
PW-5 Sh. Rajinder Singh, ACP Dwarka, had filed the complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC Ex.PW-5/A and was not cross examined despite opportunity.
PW-6 Retired SI Kamlesh Kumar filed the charge sheet and was not cross examined despite opportunity.
PW-7 SI Jagdish deposed that he received DD No. 19-A Ex.PW-7/A on 17.03.2016 and went to the spot alongwith Ct. Rajpal. He found three persons arguing with State Vs. Bharat Bhushan & others FIR No. 92/16 /PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.10 of 14 the picket staff Ct. Mahesh and Ct. Vicky and they were also pushing them. One Scorpio car without number was also present at the spot. He later stated that the said Scorpio car was having temporary number. He tried to pacify the accused persons but they were behaving aggressively. Thereafter, he recorded statement of Ct. Mahesh (Ex.PW-1/A) and sent Ct. Rajpal to PS with the ruqqa for registration of FIR. Thereafter, site plan was prepared and statement of PW-2 Ct. Vicky was recorded. On receiving copy of FIR, further investigation was carried out. Accused were arrested and their personal search memos and arrest memos were prepared. Seizure memo Ex.PW-1/E was also prepared. He had also filed an application before the ACP concerned for complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC, which is Ex.PW-5/A. During cross examination, he deposed that he received information regarding the incident around 4/4:15 p.m. and went to the spot with Ct. Rajpal on his personal motorcycle bearing No. HR-11E-1947 and remained at the spot till 6/6:15 p.m. He could not recall if MLCs of complainants PW-1 and PW-2 were prepared and on refreshing his memory, he stated that they were not prepared. No public witness was joined during the investigation. He denied the suggestion that no record regarding picket duty on the date of incident was filed as no such picket was maintained as per law. Further, arrest State Vs. Bharat Bhushan & others FIR No. 92/16 /PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.11 of 14 memos, personal search memos and site plan were prepared at the spot and he denied the suggestion that these documents were prepared in the PS. Statement of Ct. Vicky was also recorded at the spot. He further admitted that he did not click any photographs of the spot on the day of incident. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated.
10. Perusal of record shows that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is rife with contradictions and inconsistencies, regarding the material parts of investigation.
None of the complainants, PW-1 and PW-2 have placed on record any extract of the duty register to show that they were on duty on 17.03.2016 at the picket in question. During cross-examination, specific question in this regard was put to PW-1 and he had admitted that the said record is maintained in the PS but was not placed on record. In the present matter, the prosecution had an opportunity to rectify the said error in the evidence of second complainant/victim PW-2 Ct. Vicky. However, the said document was not produced even during the deposition of PW-2 for reasons best known to the prosecution.
It has come in the evidence of PW-3 Ct. Rajpal that there were several members of the public who were State Vs. Bharat Bhushan & others FIR No. 92/16 /PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.12 of 14 present at the spot. However, none of such persons were joined in the investigation and no reason has come forth from the entire record to explain such lapse.
There are several other inconsistencies in the evidence of Pws regarding manner of conducting investigation. It is come in the evidence of PW-3 that all documents i.e. personal search memos, arrest memos and seizure memo were prepared by the IO in the PS. However, PW-7/IO has stated that all such documents were prepared on the spot. PW-1 had stated that he could not recall what all documents were prepared at the spot but recalled signing the site plan and arrest memos on the spot. PW-2 had yet another story to tell and he stated that he did not sign any document at the spot and in fact his statement was recorded by the IO at the PS in the evening. The IO had, however, stated that statement of PW-2 was recorded on the spot, thus adding to the confusion.
PW-3 Ct. Rajpal deposed that on receiving information regarding the incident, he went to the spot alongwith the IO by his personal car. However, PW-7 IO stated during cross-examination that he went to the spot with Ct. Rajpal on his personal motorcycle. The said inconsistency adds weight to the version of accused that all the proceedings were conducted in the PS after the accused were falsely implicated.
State Vs. Bharat Bhushan & others FIR No. 92/16 /PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.13 of 14 It has come on record that IO did not click any photographs of the spot. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution on such lapse to the investigation.
Thus, prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against all accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, accused Bharat Bhushan, Ram Chander and Devender Shokhanda are acquitted u/s 186/353/506/34 IPC in the present case.
Digitally
signed by
Pronounced in open Court SAMIKSHA
SAMIKSHA
GUPTA
on 15th of November, 2022 GUPTA Date:
2022.11.15
14:56:36
+0530
SAMIKSHA GUPTA
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dwarka Courts: New Delhi 15.11.2022 State Vs. Bharat Bhushan & others FIR No. 92/16 /PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.14 of 14