Delhi District Court
State vs Bablu @ Jasbir Singh on 27 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. BABLOO @ JASBIR
FIR NO: 137/2008
P. S Vasant Kunj North
U/s 186, 353 & 332 IPC
Crc No./47518/2016
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 23.03.2011
Name of the complainant : HC Dharamvir
Date of Commission of offence : 22.03.2008
Name of the accused : Bablu @ Jasbir Singh, S/o
Raj Singh, R/o H. No.
A-2/112, Mahipalpur
Extension, Delhi.
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 05.01.2026
Final Order : Convicted
Date of orders : 27.01.2026
Digitally signed
ANIMESH by ANIMESH
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2026.01.27
16:31:03 +0530
Page 1 of 27
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1.Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused namely Bablu @ Jasbir Singh for having committed the offence punishable u/s 186, 353 & 332 of Indian Penal Code, 1861 (hereinafter referred as "IPC").
2.Briefly stated, as per the case of prosecution, on 22.03.2008, the complainant Ct. Dharamvir was posted in PCR Zebra 51. His duty hours were from 8 AM to 8 PM. At around 1 PM, he along with I/c Van Sudarshan Ram and Ct. Bhagwan Dass were present in Mahipalpur area. At that time, they received information regarding stone pelting at Mata Chowk, Mahipalpur. Thereafter, the complainant along with other PCR officials reached at the place of the incident. Many persons were gathered at the spot. Thereafter, the police officials got down from the PCR van. The accused Bablu @ Jasbir was present at the spot. When the PCR officials made inquiries from the accused regarding the incident, he got into verbal altercation with them. When the complainant got down from the PCR van, the accused asked him to go away and also started manhandling the complainant. The accused also assaulted the complainant Ct. Dharamvir and gave him fist blow under his right eye due to which he sustained injuries. The accused also tore the uniform of the Page 2 of 27 complainant. Thereafter, the information regarding the incident was given to the police station after which the investigating officer reached at the spot. The complainant was taken to the hospital for medical examination.
3.After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out by PS Vasant Kunj North and a charge sheet was filed against the accused. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused vide order dated 22.03.2008 for the offence punishable u/s 186, 353 & 332 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCES LED BY THE PARTIES
4.In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined following two witnesses:
• Ct. Bhagwan Dass, the eye witness, deposed as PW-1; and • Inspector Mahender Lal, the investigating officer, deposed as PW-2.
5.PW-1 is the eye witness of the present case. He is the material witness of the prosecution. During the examination-in-chief, he deposed that on 22.03.2008, he was posted as Constable at PCR, Zebra 51. His duty hours were from 8 AM to 8 PM at Mahipalpur, Delhi. He was accompanied by the Incharge namely Sudarshan Ram and driver HC Dharamvir. He further stated that at about 1 PM, PCR van received the information Page 3 of 27 regarding stone pelting at Mata Chowk, Mahipalpur. Upon receiving the information, on the direction the In charge, PCR van reached at Mata Chowk, Mahipalpur where he saw that people had gatherer at the spot. Thereafter, he along with In charge got down from the van and made inquiries regarding the call. He further stated that In-charge van also made inquiries from the accused who was present in the crowd. The accused sated that "tumhe yahan kisne bulaya hai, tum kya kar loge, kya tum nahi jante mein kan hu."
6.PW-1 further deposed that the accused also started manhandling him and the Incharge. When HC Dharamvir also got down from PCR van and asked the accused to go away and let them perform their duties, the accused started manhandling HC Dharamvir and also tore his uniform. The accused also gave fist blow to HC Dharamvir under his right eye and caused hurt to him. Thereafter, PW-1 along with the In charge and HC Dharamvir somehow managed to control the accused. Thereafter, IO of the present case Inspector Mahender Pal and Ct. Lal Singh reached at the spot. He further stated that HC Dharamvir was badly injured and blood was oozing out. Thereafter, IO took HC Dharamvir to the Safdarjung Hospital where his medical examination was conducted. He further stated that IO recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared site plan and Page 4 of 27 also seized the torn uniform of the complainant. PW-1 correctly identified the accused in the Court. PW-1 was not cross-examined by the accused despite the fact that multiple opportunities were granted to him.
7.PW-2 Inspector Mahender Lal is the investigating officer of the present case. He deposed that on 22.03.2008, he received information regarding stone pelting vide DD No. 31B. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Lal Singh went to the spot i.e. Mata Chowk, Mahipalpur, where they found one PCR van along with ASI Sudarshan, gunman HC Bhagwan and driver HC Dharamveer was already present there. The accused was also present there. He further stated that HC Dharamvir had injury on his right eye and blood was oozing out. The accused was also having injuries on the right hand little finger. Thereafter, he took the accused and HC Dharamvir to the Safdarjung Hospital. He recorded the statement of HC Dharamvir in the hospital Ex. PW-2/A on the basis of which he prepared rukka and got the present FIR registered. He prepared the site plan at the instance of ASI Sudarshan Ex. PW-2/B and also seized the torn uniform of HC Dharamvir vide memo Ex. PW-2/C. He also arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-2/D and also conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-2/E. He correctly identified the accused in the Court. He Page 5 of 27 also identified the torn uniform of the complainant Ex. P-1 which was produced in the Court in a white pullanda in a sealed condition.
8.PW-2 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had gotten conducted the medical examination of the accused. He further stated that he could not comment as to whether the accused was under the influence of alcohol or not. He also stated that on 22.03.2008, it was a Holi festival. He admitted that the public persons were present at the spot but they refused to give their statements because of their personal reasons. He also stated that no CCTV camera was installed at the spot. He denied the suggestion that no quarrel took place between the accused and Ct. Dharamvir. He also denied the suggestion that shirt of the complainant Ct. Dharamvir got torn when he tried to apprehended the accused as the accused was under the influence of alcohol. He also denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case as no harm was caused to any police official. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
9.The accused admitted u/s 294 Cr.P.C, the genuineness of the FIR, DD No. 31B dated 22.03.2008 PS VK North, MLC of the victim and sanction Page 6 of 27 u/s 195 Cr.P.C, Ex. A-1 to A-4 respectively. Hence, formal proof of these documents was dispensed with.
10.After examination of all prosecution witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") on 24.07.2025 wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to him which he denied and took a defence that he was falsely implicated in the present case. He also stated that on the day of the incident, he was going back to his house and when he reached near Mata Chowk, it was crowded. He also stated that he along with HC Dharamvir were pushed in the crowd and he touched HC Dharamvir by mistake. He also stated that it was not intentional. The accused did not lead any defence evidence (DE). Thus, DE was closed and final arguments were heard.
11.During the final arguments, the Ld. APP urged that testimony of the eye witness of the present case i.e. PW-1 has remained unchallenged in the cross-examination and there is no reason to doubt his testimony. It was further argued that the testimony of PW-1 could also be corroborated from the medial evidence and testimony of the IO. It was also contended that even the accused did not dispute the presence of the complainant at the spot and the fact that he had sustained injuries and his uniform got torn. Page 7 of 27
12.On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of PW-1. It was further argued that the complainant and victim of the present case who sustained injuries was never examined by the prosecution. Also, the duty roster of the complainant and other eye witnesses was not proved on record by the prosecution which could prove that they were on official duty at the time of the incident. Therefore, benefit of doubts should be extended to the accused.
13.I have heard the Ld. APP and Ld. defence counsel and have perused the case file.
14.Before, discussing the testimonies of PWs, it would be prudent to discuss the legal position involved in the present case.
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
15. Section 186 provides for the offence of obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions. It reads as under:
"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."Page 8 of 27
16. A bare reading of the above provision clearly shows that the said offence is committed only when the public servant is obstructed in the discharge of his public functions "voluntarily". The term "voluntarily" is defined u/s 39 IPC as "a person is said to cause an effect "voluntarily" when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it."
17. Section 353 IPC provides for the offence for assaulting or using criminal force to deter public servant from discharging of his duty. It reads as under:
"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."
18. Section 332 IPC provides for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to a public person while discharging his official duty. It reads as under:
"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 Page 9 of 27 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."
19. Hence, in order to prove the guilt of an accused charged for the offence punishable u/s 186/332/353 IPC, it is imperative for the prosecution to prove that the said obstruction/assault/hurt is caused by the accused with the intention of causing obstruction/assault/hurt to a public servant or with knowledge that the obstruction/assault/hurt will be caused to a public servant. Thus, it is important that the accused must have the knowledge or reason to believe that the person to whom the obstruction/assault/hurt is being caused is a "public servant".
FINDINGS
20. As per the case of prosecution, the accused Bablu @ Jasbir Singh obstructed the PCR police official namely HC Dharamvir who was public servant from discharging their public function (who had gone to attend a PCR call along with other police officials namely Ct. Bhagwan Dass and Sudarshan Ram and also assaulted HC Dharamvir due to which he sustained injuries. Hence, the accused Page 10 of 27 has been charged for the offences punishable u/s 186, 353 & 332 IPC.
21. In the instant case, in order to bring home the culpability of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 186, 332 & 353 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubts the following facts:
i. That the complainant HC Dharamvir and Ct. Bhagwan Dass are public servants;
ii. That at the time of the incident, they were discharging public function or their official duty;
iii. That the accused persons had obstructed HC Dharamvir and Ct.
Bhagwan Das in discharge of their public function or official duty;
iv. That the accused persons had assaulted HC Dharamvir with an intention to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty as such public servant; and v. That hurt was caused to HC Dharamvir i.e. the accused had voluntarily caused hurt to the said police official.Page 11 of 27
22. In the instant case, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of the eye witness PW-1 Ct. Bhagwan Dass in order to bring home the culpability of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 186, 332 & 353 IPC.
23. In order to prove the first two facts i.e. HC Dharamvir and Ct.
Bhagwan Dass were public servants and they were discharging public function or their official duty at the time of the incident, the prosecution has examined the eye witness PW-1 Ct. Bhagwan Dass
24. PW-1 had categorically stated that on the day of the incident, he was posted at PCR Zebra 51 as Constable. He also stated that he was accompanied by In Charge Sudarshan Ram and the driver HC Dharamvir. He further stated that he along with other PCR officials went to the spot situated at Mata Chowk, Mahipalpur upon receiving a PCR call regarding stone pelting.
25. Section 21 of the IPC defines "public servant". It is an inclusive definition. The term "public servant" interalia includes any person in the service or pay of the Government or any local authority, as well as those performing public duties assigned by the Government. Police officers are explicitly recognized as public servants due to their role in executing public duties assigned by the Government. A police officer, Page 12 of 27 being in the service of the Government and performing public duties, falls under the definition of a public servant as per Section 21 IPC.
26. In the instant case, perusal of the testimony of the eye witness PW-1 would clearly show that he along with the complainant HC Dharamvir were posted at PCR Zebra 51 as Constable and Head Constable respectively at the time of the incident and reached at Mata Chowk upon receiving the information regarding the incident of stone pelting. Also, being police officials, both PW-1 and complainant were also in the government service and on the pay of the government. Thus, it is clear that both PW-1 and the complainant HC Dharamvir were public servants at the time of the incident.
27. Now the question would arise as to whether the complainant PW-1 and the complainant HC Dharamvir even though public servants were actually discharging public function or official duty at the time of the incident. In order to prove this, the prosecution again relied upon the oral testimonies of the PW-1 and the IO PW-2.
28. PW-1 had categorically stated that at the time of the incident, he along with HC Dharamvir were posted in PCR Van Zebra 51 in Mahipalpur area. He further stated they reached at Mata Chowk after receiving the information about the incident of stone pelting. He also Page 13 of 27 stated that many persons including the accused had gathered at the spot. This fact could also be corroborated from the testimony of the IO PW-2 who had also stated that one PCR van was present at the spot along with ASI Sudarshan, Gunman HC Jai Bhagwan and driver HC Dharamvir when he reached there after receiving the information about the incident vide DD No. 31B.
29. Interestingly, the presence of the PCR officials was not even specifically disputed by the accused. The accused had in fact admitted the presence of the complainant HC Dharamvir at the spot in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
30. Therefore, in view of the above, I find that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubts that Ct. Bhagwan Dass and HC Dharamvir were public servants as defined under section 21 of the IPC and they were discharging public function or official duty at the time of the incident.
31. In so far as allegation regarding assaulting or using of criminal force by the accused restraining public servant i.e. the complainant HC Dharamvir from performing their official duties or causing any act with intent to prevent or deter them from discharging his duty, is concerned, it should be noted that the prosecution must meet Page 14 of 27 essential requirements that a public servant must be assaulted or subjected to criminal force when he was carrying out his responsibilities; or with the goal of preventing or discouraging him from doing his duties.
32. To establish as to whether the accused has assaulted the complainant or used any criminal force upon him, it is necessary to examine the definition of 'force', 'criminal force' and 'assault', which are defined in section 349, 350 and 351 of IPC. Section 349 reads as under:
Section 349: Force-- A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling: Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described:
First.--By his own bodily power.
Secondly.--By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person.Page 15 of 27
Thirdly.--By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.
XXXXXXXXXXXX Section 350: Criminal force--Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
XXXXXXXXXXXXX Section 351: Assault-- Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault. Explanation.--Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault.
33. A reading of above provisions makes it clear that a person is said to use force in any of the three methods mentioned above. The exertion of energy or power that causes a movement or change in the external environment is known as force. The term "force" as defined insertion 349 refers to force exerted by a person on another human. It is also clear that the force that has been specified in Section 349 changes into a criminal force when the essential of Section 350 are satisfied. Page 16 of 27 The essentials of Section 350 are intentional/deliberate use of force against any one; without consent, when the claimed assault involves illegal conduct and the force has to be utilized in order to conduct an offence or to cause hurt or fear to another person
34. In the present case, in order to prove that the accused persons had obstructed the complainant HC Dharamvir in discharge of his public function or official duty and assaulted or used criminal force upon his due to which he sustained injury, the prosecution had again relied upon the testimonies of the eye witness PW-1 and IO PW-2.
35. PW-1 in his testimony had given a detailed account of the manner in which the accused behaved with him and other PCR officials when they started inquiring about the incident of stone pelting after reaching the spot. He had also specifically stated that when the driver of PCR van HC Dharamvir got down from the van and asked the accused to go away and let the police officials do their job, then the accused manhandled the the complainant HC Dharamvir and gave him fist blow under his right eye due to which he sustained injury and blood started oozing out from beneath his eye. He also stated that the accused also manhandled the complainant HC Dharamvir due to which his uniform also got torn. No material contradiction could be Page 17 of 27 seen in the testimony of the PW-1. He was not cross-examined by the accused despite the fact that multiple opportunities were provided to him.
36. The fact that the the complainant HC Dharamvir was assaulted by the accused could also get corroborated from the testimony of the IO PW-2 who reached at the spot shortly after receiving the information about the incident. He had categorically stated that he found both the accused and PCR officials including the complainant HC Dharamvir at the spot. He also stated that both the accused and the complainant HC Dharamvir were injured and HC Dharamvir was having injury on the right eye and blood was oozing out. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and no material contradictions could be seen in his testimony.
37. Moreover, the testimonies of the eye witness PW-1 and the IO could also be corroborated from the MLC of the complainant HC Dharamvir which was admitted by the accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Perusal of the the MLC of the complainant HC Dharamvir Ex. A-3 would show that injury was reported on his right cheek (below right eye).
38. Thus, in view of the above, the perusal of the testimonies of the eye witness PW-1 and IO PW-2 would clearly show that the accused Page 18 of 27 persons had obstructed PW-1 and the complainant HC Dharamvir during their PCR duty when they went to the spot to attend a PCR call regarding stone pelting at Mata Chowk, Mahipalpur. The accused assaulted the complainant HC Dharamvir and gave his fist blows near his right eye due to which the complainant sustained injuries. His uniform also got torn in the incident. The act of the accused by punching the complainant and manhandling him (during which his uniform got torn) would mean that the accused had applied criminal force upon the complainant.
39. Before concluding with the judgment, I shall also be discussing the defence taken by the accused persons.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
40. During the final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the accused had interalia argued that the accused cannot be convicted only on the basis of sole testimony of an eye witness PW-1 who also happens to be a police official. It was also argued that no other public or independent witness was examined.
41. At the outset, in so far as the argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused regarding conviction of the accused based on sole testimony Page 19 of 27 of one eye witness is concerned, it should be noted that the said argument does not hold any ground.
42. It is a settled proposition of law that an accused can be convicted based on the testimony of solitary witness if the same is unblemished and gains the confidence of the Court. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly provides that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish a case. It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity which is to be seen.
43. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 Crl. LJ 1023 , wherein the Apex Court had upheld a conviction under Section 302 IPC based on the sole testimony of a witness. The Hon'ble Court has held that "on the basis of solitary evidence conviction can be maintained. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained." Page 20 of 27
44. The above discussed principle was reiterated (albeit with certain qualifications) recently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh vs. State (NCT OF Delhi) Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2015 decided on 12th October 2020 wherein it was held that conviction can be based on sole eye witness testimony only if he is wholly reliable. But if there are doubts about the testimony then the Courts will insist on corroboration. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
"16. Thus, the finding of guilt of the two accused appellants recorded by the two Courts below is based on sole testimony of eye witness PW-1. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony Courts will insist on corroboration. 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"
45. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of State through Inspector of Police vs. Laly @ Manikandan @ Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1424 has again reiterated the ratio that there can be Page 21 of 27 a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable.
46. Hence, in view of the above discussions, it becomes very clear that an accused can be convicted based on the sole testimony of witness/ complainant. However, the said testimony must be unblemished and wins the confidence of the Court. If there is any contradiction or doubt over the reliability of the witness, then the Courts can insist on corroboration.
47. In the instant case, it should be noted that in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined only one eye-witness i.e. PW-2. The complainant himself i.e. HC Dharamvir and another eye witness SI Sudarshan could not be examined by the prosecution as they passed away during the pendency of the trial. PW-1 in his testimony had completely supported the case of prosecution. He had categorically stated that on the date of incident, when they reached at the spot to attend a PCR call, HC Dharamvir who was the driver of the PCR van was manhandled and assaulted by the accused who was present at the spot due to which he sustained injuries. The testimony of the eye witness could get corroborated from the MLC of Page 22 of 27 the victim and also from the testimony of the IO. No material contradictions could be seen in his testimony.
48. Further, It should also be noted that it is a settled proposition of law that the testimony of the police officials cannot be discarded away merely because of the fact that no public witnesses were not examined, however, their testimonies have to be scrutinised in more detail. If it is found the police officials during the course of investigation did not even make endeavour to ask the public witnesses to join the investigation, did not even ask their names and details etc. then it would cast a very serious doubt on the testimonies of the police officials. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tahir v. State (Delhi) [(1996) 3 SCC 338], dealing with a similar question, the Hon'ble Apex Court held interalia the following:
"In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, Page 23 of 27 after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. The obvious result of the above discussion is that the statement of a police officer can be relied upon and even form the basis of conviction when it is reliable, trustworthy and preferably corroborated by other evidence on record."
49. In the instant case, it should be noted that the presence of the complainant and the other police officials at the spot at the time of the incident has been duly established by the prosecution. No material contradiction could be seen in the testimonies of the PWs. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the eye witness and to discard his testimony only on the ground that he was police official. His testimony could get corroborated with medical evidence brought on record.
50. Moreover, the perusal of the cross-examination of the IO PW-2 by the accused and the statement given by him u/s 313 Cr.P.C would show that he had indirectly admitted his presence as well as the presence of the the complainant HC Dharamvir at the spot at the time of the incident and also admitted that he had pushed the complainant. The admission regarding the presence of the accused and the Page 24 of 27 complainant at the spot was also made when the accused gave suggestion to the IO PW-2 during his cross-examination that the shirt of Ct. Dharamvir got torn as he tried to apprehended the accused who was under the influence of alcohol. This suggestion was denied by the witnesses.
51. This would mean that the accused had in fact admitted his presence and the presence of complainant and other police officials at the spot at the time of the commission of the offence. It would also show that the accused had in fact entered into altercation with the complainant when he tried to apprehended him due to which the shirt of the complainant got torn. It could be inferred simply from the fact that the uniform of the complainant would got get automatically got torn merely on the touch of the accused. These suggestions being incriminating in nature would bind the accused persons. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde vs. State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No. 1910 of 2010 dated 29th March, 2023. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
"Thus, from the above it is evident that the suggestion made by the defence counsel to a witness in the cross-examination if found to be Page 25 of 27 incriminating in nature in any manner would definitely bind the accused and the accused cannot get away on the plea that his counsel had no implied authority to make suggestions in the nature of admissions against his client.
It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the initial burden to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution. It is also an elementary principle of law that the prosecution has to prove its case on its own legs and cannot derive advantage or benefit from the weakness of the defence. We are not suggesting for a moment that if prosecution is unable to prove its case on its own legs then the Court can still convict an accused on the strength of the evidence in the form of reply to the suggestions made by the defence counsel to a witness. Take for instance, in the present case we have reached to the conclusion that the evidence of the three eyewitnesses inspires confidence and there is nothing in their evidence on the basis of which it could be said that they are unreliable witnesses. Having reached to such a conclusion, in our opinion, to fortify our view we can definitely look into the suggestions made by the defence counsel to the eyewitnesses, the reply to those establishing the presence of the accused persons as well as the eyewitnesses in the night hours. To put it in other words, suggestions by itself are not sufficient to hold the accused guilty if they are incriminating in any manner or are in the form of admission in the absence of any other reliable evidence on record. It is true that a suggestion has no evidentiary value but this proposition of law would not hold good at all times and in a given case during the course of cross-examination the defence counsel may put such a suggestion the answer to which may directly go against the accused and this is exactly what has happened in the present case. XXXXXXXX Page 26 of 27 Therefore, we are of the opinion that suggestions made to the witness by the defence counsel and the reply to such suggestions would definitely form part of the evidence and can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence on record to determine the guilt of the accused."
FINAL ORDER
52. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, I find that the prosecution has successfully proved (beyond reasonable doubts) it was the accused Bablu @ Jasbir Singh who had assaulted or used criminal force upon the complainant HC Dharamvir who was public servant when he was discharging public function or official duty i.e. attending PCR call due to which he had sustained simple injury.
53. Hence, the accused namely Bablu @ Jasbir Singh stands convicted for the offence punishable u/s 186, 332 and 353 IPC.
54. Let copy of the judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost.
Digitally signed
ANIMESH by ANIMESH
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2026.01.27
16:31:10 +0530
Announced in the open court (Animesh Kumar)
on 27.01.2026. JMFC-02/PHC/New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 27 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Animesh Kumar) JMFC-02/PHC/New Delhi Page 27 of 27