Delhi District Court
State vs Pawan Kumar Morya on 17 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. APOORV GUPTA, JMFC-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA
FIR NO. 203 / 2016
U/S 186 / 353 / 332 IPC
POLICE STATION TIMAR PUR
Date of institution of the case : 22.06.2017
Date of judgment reserved : 22.06.2024
CNR No. : DLCT020143482017
CR. Case No. : 6765 / 2017
Name of the complainant : Ct. Deepak (PIS - 29100521)
Name of accused and address : PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA
S/o Sh. Ram Tej Maurya,
R/o Sambha Pur Village,
Near Govt School, Delhi-110094.
Offence complained of : 186 / 353 / 332 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 17.09.2024
Final order : CONVICTION
JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :
1. The prosecution story is that on 05.04.2016 at about 10:00 PM at Wazirabad traffic point, Delhi accused Pawan Kumar Maurya obstructed police official namely Ct. Deepak in performance of his duty and also assaulted the STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 1 / 20 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:32:19 +0530 injured/complainant to deter him from performing his duties and voluntarily caused hurt to complainant/injured while he was discharging his duties and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 186/332/353 IPC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE :
2. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the court.
Charge was framed U/s 186/332/353 IPC against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION :
3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses.
4. PW-1 Ct. Deepak is the complainant. He has deposed that on 05.04.2016 he was discharging his duty in disbursing traffic along with other traffic staff including traffic inspector. They were standing near the Wazirabad Bridge and were managing the traffic coming to and fro from Khajuri. At about 10:00 PM, there was huge traffic jam on the road and specifically on the stated bridge. One scooter rider was seen coming on the wrong side of the road. He instructed him to go back and come from the right side of the road. Despite his instructions, the scooter rider did not agree and rather started arguing. Accused even placed his scooter on the road and he himself lied on the ground. When he tried to pull him up of the road, he took his helmet and hit him with the same. He also started shouting and did not allow him to discharge his duty. He even further assaulted him by grabbing him from the collar of his shirt. He did not stop here and STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 2 / 20 Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:32:25 +0530 even torn his uniform. He tried to pacify him and even requested multiple times to allow him to discharge his duties. He even requested him to come from right side of the road but he did not follow any of his request. After hearing the noise the ZO Yashpal Malik who was discharging his duty at the spot came near to him and he also further tried to separate the accused from him. The accused was so aggressive that he even did not stop himself from torning the uniform of the ZO who was actually trying to pacify him. With the assistance of the public persons they somehow managed to separate themselves from the accused. Large number of persons had gathered at the spot at that time. The police was informed. PCR arrived at the spot. Police staff from the nearest PS also arrived at the spot and he was sent to the hospital for medical treatment. On 06.04.2006, his statement Ex.
PW-1/A was recorded. He handed over his uniform and same was seized vide memo Ex. PW-1/B. The scooter was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C. Accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW-1/D and Ex. PW-1/E respectively.
5. PW-2 Yashpal Singh has deposed that on 05.04.2016 at about 10.00 P.M he along with Ct. Deepak and other traffic police staff at Soor Ghat, Wazirabad, Old Bridge were doing duty. Scooter bearing registration no. DL-6SR- 3798 was coming from Timar Pur side and was going towards Wazirabad side. It was coming from the wrong side. Ct. Deepak stopped the scooter rider and asked him to return and come from right side but scooter rider got into a verbal argument with Ct. Deepak and he placed his scooter on the road. He also lay on the road. Ct. Deepak tried to pick him up but scooter rider got into a fight with Ct. Deepak and grabbed his uniform. He was standing a little ahead of this incident. The scooter STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 3 / 20 Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:32:31 +0530 rider picked up the helmet and hit the same on the hand of Ct. Deepak. Seeing this, he ran towards the spot and tried to save Ct. Deepak. He was also attacked and scooter rider grabbed his neck due to which the buttons of his uniform were broken. Somebody called at 100 number. PCR came at the spot and after sometime SI Abishek Verma came at the spot and made enquiry from him and asked them to join the investigation. SI Abhishek seized the uniforms vide seizure memo Ex. PW- 1/B. Scooter, two plastic bags and helmet which were kept on the scooter were also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW- 1/D and was personally searched vide memo Ex. PW-1/E. Site Plan Ex. PW-2/A was prepared at his instance.
6. PW-3 Sachin Kalra has deposed that on 05.04.2016 at about 10.00 PM he was traveling in his car and was going to his home Shalimar Bagh from Tronica City, Ghaziabad. As soon as he reached at Yamuna Pul there was a traffic jam and traffic was moving very slowly. When he crossed the bridge he saw a scooter was lying on the road and the two wheeler rider had altercation with the police official. There were many people gathered at the spot and some of them were making video of the incident. After seeing the same, he made a 100 number call. He failed to identify the accused and was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State but he failed to identify the accused.
7. PW-4 ACP Vijay Kumar has deposed that on 05.04.2016 in the evening time, he was present at Wazirabad bridge with other police staff namely SI Yashpal, Ct. Deepak and driver. Due to the heavy traffic present at the Wazirabad bridge, they were regulating the traffic. At about 10.00 PM, one scooter bearing STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 4 / 20 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:32:38 +0530 registration no. 3798, silver grey in colour, being driven by accused, was trying to go towards the wrong side. Ct. Deepak tried to persuade and requested the accused to wait for his turn as the other people were also waiting for their turn but accused started having heated argument with Ct. Deepak and denied to move his scooter. Due to this, the traffic got further congested and the other people who were present at the spot were also objecting the behavior of the accused. The accused laid down his scooter in the middle of the road and in anger smashed his helmet onto the hand of Ct. Deepak. In this altercation, accused also tore the uniform of Ct. Deepak. After seeing the same, ZO/SI Yashpal reached the spot and tried to pacify the accused but accused also manhandled him. People who were present at the spot, stepped in to assist the police officials in controlling the accused person. Someone from the public made PCR call. He also conveyed the information to the senior officer regarding the incident through wireless set. Accused was behaving like a maniac and he was running and falling here and there and in this process he injured himself. Local police reached at the spot.
8. PW-5 ASI Devender has produced the record regarding the deployment on point/intersection dated 05.04.2016. On the instructions of TI, he marked the duty of police official on particular point for the time period of 2 months. The night duty was marked as per the requirement of the traffic duties. He also produced record of the duty Ex. PW-1/D1 marked on 05.04.2016. He also produced true copy of the DD No. 40 dated 05.04.2016 Ex. PW-5/A through which SI Yashpal made departure in night traffic regulation and prosecution checking.
STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 5 / 20 Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:32:46 +0530
9. PW-6 Naveen Kumar Suri has deposed that on 12.05.2016 he clicked photographs of scooter bearing registration no. DL-6SR-3798 along with helmet and the owner of the said scooter. He handed over the photographs along with the CD Ex. P-1 to the investigating officer.
10. PW-7 HC Ashwani produced register no.19 for the year 2016 in which SI Abhishek Verma deposited the case property i.e. two shirts, articles as per personal search memo of accused, one scooter bearing registration no DL6SR3798, two plastic katta and one helmet vide entry no.2278 Ex. PW-7/A.
11. PW-8 ASI Hari Chandra was working as Duty Officer on 06.04.2016. At about 12:25 AM Ct. Anil Kumar handed over the rukka to him on the basis of which FIR Ex. PW-8/A was registered. He made endorsement on rukka Ex. PW- 8/B and issued certificate U/s 65-B of I.E. Act Ex. A-2. Further investigation was marked to SI Abhishek Verma.
12. PW-9 HC Anil Kumar joined investigation with Inspector Abhishek Verma and took tehrir to the police station for registration of FIR. He is also a witness to arrest of accused and other proceedings conducted by the investigating officer.
13. PW-10 Dr. Kuldeep has deposed that on 05.04.2016 at 11:44 PM he medically examined Ct. Deepak vide ME No. 1859/16 Ex. PW-10/A. On 06.04.2016 at 01:10AM he medically examined Pawan Kumar Maurya vide ME No. 1861/16 Ex. PW-10/B. STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 6 / 20 Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:32:53 +0530
14. PW-11 ASI Sanjay Kumar has deposed that on 05.04.2016 at about 22:34 he received the call from call centre and he forwarded the same at about 22:35 to nearest PCR van SGR-12 and the district control room. He produced computer generated PCR form of the above call Ex. PW-11/A.
15. PW-12 Inspector Abhishek Verma is the investigating officer. He has deposed that on the intervening night of 05-06.04.2016 he was performing emergency duty along with Ct. Anil Kumar. At about 10:35 PM, information was received regarding the traffic jam and quarrel with the police officials near Wazirabad flyover. He along with Ct. Anil Kumar went to the spot and met Ct. Deepak, ZO/SI Yashpal and accused Pawan Kumar Maurya. Ct. Deepak narrated the whole incident to them. Ct. Anil took Ct. Deepak AAAG hospital for his medical examination. Statement of Ct. Deepak Ex. PW-1/A was recorded and on the basis of which tehrir Ex. PW-12/A was prepared and same was handed over to Ct. Anil Kumar for getting the FIR registered. Ct. Anil Kumar left the spot and returned back after registration of FIR to the spot along with the copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over the same to him. Site plan Ex. PW-2/A was prepared at the instance of Ct. Deepak. Torn uniforms of Ct. Deepak and ZO/SI Yashpal were seized, after preparing pullinda and sealing the same with the seal of 'AV', vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B. After use, the seal was handed over to Ct. Anil Kumar. Scooter bearing registration no. DL-6SR-3798, helmet and 2 plastic sacks were also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/D and was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex. PW-1/E. Disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW-9/A was recorded. He STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 7 / 20 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:32:59 +0530 along with Ct. Anil Kumar took the case property and accused to the PS where the case property was deposited into the malkhana of PS Timar Pur. Ct. Anil Kumar took the accused to AAAG hospital for his medical examination. PCR Form Ex. PW-11/A was obtained from the Control Room. Permission U/s 195 Cr.P.C. Mark X was obtained from the concerned authority. He made an application for providing the duty roster dated 05.04.2016 of Civil Lines Circle vide Ex. PW-12A. Case property i.e. scooter bearing registration no. DL-6SR-3798 was released on superdari after preparing Panchnama. The superdarinama, panchnama and 05 photographs are Ex. PW-12/C.
16. PW-13 Pawan Kumar Maurya is the registered owner of scooter bearing registration no. DL-6SR-3798 and the owner of the mobile phone, plastic raw material and cash of Rs. 10,100/-. He got released the same on superdari vide superdiginama Ex. PW-13/A. STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED :
17. After conclusion of this evidence, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he admitted that :
(I) On 05.04.2016 PW-1 Ct. Deepak alongwith other traffic staff including traffic inspector were standing near Wazirabad bridge and were managing traffic coming to and fro from Khajuri. There was heavy traffic. (II) On 05.04.2016 at about 10.00 PM he was coming on the wrong side of the road on his scooter.
STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 8 / 20 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:33:07 +0530 (III) PW-12 Inspector Abhishek Verma seized scooter bearing registration no. DL-6SR-3798, helmet and 2 plastic sacks Ex.P1 vide seizure memo Ex. PW- 1/C. (IV) Photocopy of complaint dated 16.01.2019 addressed to SHO, PS Timarpur is Mark A and another photocopy of complaint dated 16.01.2019 addressed to Commissioner of Police, PHQ is Mark B. Postal receipts are Ex. PW- 12/DA.
(V) He was the registered owner of scooter bearing registration no. DL- 6SR-3798 and same was released on superdari vide superdarinama Ex. PW-13/A. The panchnama documents are Ex. PW-12/C. He did not deny that :-
(I) He was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/D and was personally searched vide memo Ex. PW-1/E. (II) PW-12 Inspector Abhishek Verma made an application for providing duty roster dated 05.04.2016 of Civil Lines Circle vide Ex. PW-12/B. He pleaded his innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. He stated that he was beaten by 3 traffic police officials as they were indulged in hot-talks with other bike-rider who went away from the spot.
In heat of anger, he was beaten by them. He chose to lead evidence in his defence.
18. DW-1 Anil Pandey has deposed that on 05.04.2016 he was coming from Begumpur in a tempo and was going towards his house in Sonia Vihar. When he reached at the Wazirabad bridge, police officials were present there and there was a traffic jam. He was on the right side and the motorcycles used to pass through the wrong side at that time. He observed that on his right side, some STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 9 / 20 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:33:14 +0530 altercation was taking place between the traffic police and the accused. In the meantime, 2 police officials also came to the spot and started beating the accused.
19. DW-2 Bhola has deposed that on 05.04(wrongly mentioned as
7).2016, at about 10.00 PM he was going towards Sonia Vihar and there was a one- way road at the time of incident and bike riders used to pass at the wrong side. He observed that an altercation was taking place between the accused and 2 police officials. The police officials were beating the accused.
20. DW-3 Dr. GBS Kohli medically examined Pawan Kumar on 07.04.2016 in OPD and prescribed the medicines on the OPD card Ex. DW-3/A.
21. DW-4 Dr. G.L. Arora has deposed that patient Pawan Kumar was referred to him from the orthopedics department. He referred the patient to the emergency medical surgery officer and mentioned the same on his OPD card Ex. DW-3/A.
22. DW-5 Joginder Singh produced the medical treatment record of the patient Pawan Kumar Maurya dated 07.04.2016. He further deposed that as per the records, the UHID HRH-0001714075 was generated from the registration counter but presently the HIS was not working presently and manual card are prepared these days, so the details of that UHID cannot be produced. Copy of card is Mark D-5A and the report on the same of the CMO, MRD is from point B to B1. Serial number 17140 mentioned on the casualty card Mark 'D5' is not available in the hospital records.
STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 10 / 20
Digitally signed by
APOORV APOORV GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17
12:33:22 +0530
23. I have heard the submissions of Sh. Anil Kumar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for accused and Sh. Deepak, Ld. APP for State and carefully gone through the material on record.
24. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that there is no public person to support the case of the prosecution despite the fact that public persons were available at all points of time. He further submitted that accused is entitled to benefit of doubt due to want of a public witness. Further all the witnesses are police officials and they cannot be relied upon. It has also been submitted that there are many contradictions in testimonies of the witnesses which goes to the root of the case. Accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter as he has not paid the amount as demanded by the police official. Further the uniform which has been produced is fabricated.
25. On the other hand, Ld. APP submitted that there is no reason to doubt the testimony of police witnesses. All the police witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination and contradictions which have been pointed by the Ld. Defence Counsel are minor contradictions.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
26. As regards the submission that there is no independent witness of recovery, it is common experience that public persons are generally reluctant to join police proceedings. There is generally apathy and indifference on the part of public to join such proceedings. This position of law was reiterated in Aslam & STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 11 / 20 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:33:28 +0530 Ors Vs. State, 2010 III AD (Delhi) 133 where Hon'ble High Court observed as under:
"that reluctance of the citizens to join police proceedings in well known and needs to be recognized. It cannot be disregarded that public does not want to get dragged in police and criminal cases and wants to avoid them because of long drawn trials and unnecessary harassment."
27. In Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 81 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :
"It is matter of common experience that in recent times there has been sharp decline of ethical values in public life even in developed countries much less developing one, like ours, where the ratio of decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by courts for manifold reasons. One of the reasons may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, more so when the offenders are habitual criminals or high- ups in the Government or close to powers, which may be political, economic or other powers including muscle power. A witness may not stand the test of cross- examination which may be sometime because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skilful cross-examiner and at times under STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 12 / 20 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:33:34 +0530 the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from him. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. These days it is not difficult to gain over a witness by money power or giving him any other allurence or giving out threats to his life and/or property at the instance of persons, in/or close to powers and muscle men or their associates. Such instances are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent."
28. In Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563 it has been held that merely because the prosecution did not examine any independent witness would not necessarily lead to conclusion that accused was falsely implicated. In the said judgment, law laid down in the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2011) 3 SCC 521 has been re-affirmed.
29. Furthermore, it is settled principle of law that the testimony of police personnel has to be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witnesses 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 person and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good ground. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 13 / 20 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:33:42 +0530 principle of general application can be laid down as held in Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (2003) 5 SCC 291, C. Ronald Vs. Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 596. In Sunil Clifford Daniel Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205, Hon'ble Apex Court referred to State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil, (2001) 1 SCC 652, wherein Court held as under:-
"20. ... But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The court has to consider the evidence of the investigating officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth.
21. We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust.....At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way round. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature. Hence when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 14 / 20 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:33:48 +0530 for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions."
30. The court is aware of the fact that public persons are hesitant to join the police investigation unless they are themselves interested in the matter in issue. Accordingly, lack of public witnesses in regard to recovery proceedings do not go to the root of matter. The issue raised regarding conviction solely relying upon the testimony of police witnesses, without procuring any independent witness has also been dealt with in the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) holding that merely because independent witnesses were not examined, the conclusion could not be drawn that accused was falsely implicated. Therefore, the accused cannot avail any benefit on this issue.
31. Charge against accused is for offence under Section 186/332/353 IPC.
STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 15 / 20 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:33:54 +0530 32. Section 353 IPC reads as under :-
"Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such 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 two years, or with fine, or with both."
33. Section 332 IPC reads 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 intent 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."
STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 16 / 20 Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:34:00 +0530
34. Section 186 IPC reads 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."
35. The gravamen of offence under Section 186 IPC is voluntary obstruction to public servant in discharge of his public function. 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. To attract the provisions of sections 353/332 IPC, prosecution has to prove that accused person has assaulted or used criminal force upon the complainant with the intention to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty as a public servant.
36. It stands proved from the testimony of PW-1 Ct. Deepak coupled with the testimony of PW-2 SI Yashpal that Ct. Deepak was a public servant and was discharging public duty while being present at about 10.00 PM on 05.04.2016 near Wazirabad bridge. It further stand proved from the corroborative testimony of Ct. Deepak and SI Yashpal that at the time when they were discharging official duty, accused came on scooter from wrong side. When Ct. Deepak told him to come from right direction he started arguing with Ct. Deepak and hit him with his helmet on hand of Ct. Deepak. He placed his scooter on the road and lied down on the road. When Si Yashpal came to pacify the matter, he also assaulted him and tore STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 17 / 20 Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:34:07 +0530 his uniform. Accused was apprehended at the spot. As such, it stands proved that accused voluntarily obstructed the complainant who was a public servant from discharging his duties and assaulted and used criminal force causing simple hurt to him. As required under Section 186 IPC, complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C was also submitted by ACP.
37. There is no material defect found in the investigation. The investigation has been conducted in fair and legal manner. No major contradictions have been pointed out by defence counsel in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges against the accused for the offence under Section 186/353/332 IPC since the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is corroborated and the deposition of Ct. Deepak and SI Yashpal inspire confidence and proved that the accused was the same person who caused injuries to the injured while they were discharging their official function and obstructed in discharging the sovereign function.
38. Now coming to the defence of the accused. It has been alleged by accused that he was beaten by 3 police officials as they were indulged in hot-talks with other bike rider who went away from the spot.
39. In order to prove the case, accused examined Anil Pandey as DW-1 who deposed that on 05.04.2016 he was coming from Begumpur in a tempo and was going towards his house in Sonia Vihar. When he reached at the Wazirabad bridge, police officials were present there and there was a traffic jam. He was on the right side and the motorcycles used to pass through the wrong side at that time.
STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 18 / 20 APOORV Digitally signed by APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:34:13 +0530 He observed that on his right side, some altercation was taking place between the traffic police and the accused. In the meantime, 2 police officials also came to the spot and started beating the accused.
40. Bhola was examined as DW-2 who has deposed that on 05.04(wrongly mentioned as 7).2016, at about 10.00 PM he was going towards Sonia Vihar and there was a one-way road at the time of incident and bike riders used to pass at the wrong side. He observed that an altercation was taking place between the accused and 2 police officials. The police officials were beating the accused.
41. Other defence witnesses are formal witnesses.
42. Defence taken by the accused does not inspire confidence as the plea taken by accused is that police officials beat him in heat of anger as there were hot words exchanged between bike rider and 3 police officials. He has not disclosed who that bike rider was and none of the defence witness has stated on that point. It has been admitted by the accused and his witnesses that he was coming on wrong side. That being so, if police officials asked him to come from right side, there is nothing wrong about it. PW-10 Dr. Kuldeep who examined accused found that there was smell of alcohol and accused refused to give blood sample. Accused is not alleging any animosity, ill-will or grudge against any of the police officials for which reason they will falsely implicate him in this case. Therefore, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the material on record, the prosecution is able to STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 19 / 20 Digitally signed by APOORV APOORV GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.17 12:34:20 +0530 prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused. Accordingly, he is held guilty and hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 186/332/353 IPC.
Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV
GUPTA
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN GUPTA
(ApoorvDate:
Gupta)
2024.09.17
12:34:27 +0530
COURT ON 17th SEPTEMBER, 2024 JMFC-02, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/17.09.2024
This judgment consists of 20 pages and each and every page of this judgment is digitally signed by me.
Digitally signed APOORV by APOORV
GUPTA
GUPTA (ApoorvDate:
Gupta)
2024.09.17
12:34:33 +0530
JMFC-02, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/17.09.2024
STATE VS. PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA FIR NO.203/2016 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 20 / 20