Delhi District Court
Fir No. 563/2016 State vs Mohd Shamim Khan Cs No. 2040020/2016 on 7 January, 2023
FIR No. 563/2016 State vs Mohd Shamim Khan CS No. 2040020/2016
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VIJAYSHREE RATHORE, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. Mohd. Shamim Khan
FIR No. : 563/2016
PS : Hauz Khas
U/s : 186/353/332/506 IPC
JUDGMENT
A. Sl. No. of the Case 2040020/2016
B. Date of Commission of offence 25.06.2016
C. Date of FIR 25.06.2016
D. Date of charge-sheet 23.12.2016
E. Name of the complainant Sh. Rameshwer Dayal
F. Name of the accused persons, their Mohd Shamim Khan S/o Sh. Khalid Khan,
parentage and residence R/o A-146, GF Transit Camp Govind Puri ,
New Delhi.
G. Offence complained of or proved 186/353/332/506 IPC
H. Date of framing of charges 26.07.2017
I. Date of commencement of evidence 31.05.2018
J. Plea of the accused Not guilty
K. Date on which judgment is reserved 14.12.2022
L. Final Order Convicted
M. Date of Judgment 07.01.2023.
State Vs. Mohd. Shamim Khan FIR No. : 563/2016 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 186/353/332/506 IPC Page no.1 of 14
FIR No. 563/2016 State vs Mohd Shamim Khan CS No. 2040020/2016
Brief facts of the present case
1. The case put forth by prosecution in brief is that complainant was posted on duty on alleged date of incident along with Ct. Praveen no. 47427 and HC Subhash Chand no. 8587 at Hauz Khas circle. When he was standing on red light at Dalip Singh Marg at around 4:15 pm one motor cycle no. DL 35 AV 2700 rider jumped the red light. When stopped the driver of said bike and made halal no. HKC 2937-03217/16 u/s 119/133 MV Act for Rs. 100/- and impounded the licence no. DL 320120369913 for the period of three month, then the accused asked him when will he get back his licence to which he responded he will get to know about the same from the contact number and address mentioned on the challan. After sometime the motorcycle rider again came back and he asked complainant again where is the contact no, to which he again responded that it is given in the challan receipt. He then tried to abuse filthily to the complainant and also to HC Praveen and thereafter he caught the uniform and started beating him. When HC Praveen tried to save him, accused tore uniform. Accused also threatened them. A 100 number call was made. Statement of witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation, charge- sheet was filed against accused. Cognizance of the same was taken.
Framing of charge
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 26.07.2017 charge was framed against accused Mohd. Shamim Khan for the offence u/s 186/332/353 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Mohd. Shamim Khan FIR No. : 563/2016 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 186/353/332/506 IPC Page no.2 of 14
FIR No. 563/2016 State vs Mohd Shamim Khan CS No. 2040020/2016
Prosecution Evidence
3. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses. PW1 is complainant Ct. Rameshwar Dayal no. 4850/T, PW2 is Ct. Praveen, PW3 is Ct. Bijender, PW4 is SI Dalbir Singh, PW5 is SI Subhash Chand, PW6 is Uma Shanker, PW7 is Rajender Singh and PW8 is Atish, Senior Resident, AIIMS Trauma Centre. Since the accused had admitted the genuineness of FIR No. 563/2016 (without admitting the content)in the proceeding u/s294 CrPC, the witness DO SI Chaggan Lal was dropped from formal examination.
4. PW-1 Ct Rameshwar had deposed that he was posted at Hauz Khas Traffic circle on 26.06.2016 and was on duty along with HC Subhash Chand and Ct. Praveen Kumar at Choudhary Dalip Singh Marg red light. He had further deposed that at about 4:15 pm, accused was coming from wrong side on his motorcycle bearing no. DL3SCV-2700 and jumped the red light. He had further deposed that accused was stopped and challan of Rs. 100 for jumping red light was issued and licence was suspended for three months period. He had further deposed that the address from where accused was to get the driving licence after period of suspension was mentioned in the challan for suspension of licence. He had further deposed that he was also explained orally place and procedure to get back the licence after period of suspension. He had further deposed that thereafter accused proceeded to leave the place however after going for some distance, returned back and asked where the address of the place from where he will get back his driving licence is written on challan. He had further deposed that accused was explained again and address was pointed out on challan. He had further deposed that however accused got enraged and started abusing and caught hold of his collar and when he set free his collar from State Vs. Mohd. Shamim Khan FIR No. : 563/2016 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/353/332/506 IPC Page no.3 of 14 FIR No. 563/2016 State vs Mohd Shamim Khan CS No. 2040020/2016 clutches of accused, he started giving fist blows to him. He had further deposed that in the meantime, ct. Praveen intervened and saved him. He had further deposed that during this accused torn uniform of ct. Praveen and accused also tried to lift the brick lying on the road side to throw it on them. He had further deposed that they all overpowered the accused and made 100 number call. He had further deposed that he had made a complaint regarding the incident which is Ex. PW1/A. On putting leading questions by ld. APP for the State, the witness had also deposed that accused also threatened that he is resident of Govindpuri and will lift them from the spot. The witness had correctly identified the accused present in the court.
5. PW2 Ct. Praveen had deposed in the same line with PW1Ct. Rameshwar Dayal.
6. PW5 SI Subhash Chand had deposed that on 25.06.2016 he was posted as HC at Hauz Khas Traffic Circle and on that day duty was assigned to him at Dalip Singh Marg with traffic constable Rameshwar Dayal and Ct Praveen. He had further deposed that at about 4:15 pm accused was coming from Green Park Side and was going towards PS Hauz Khas through bike bearing no. 2700 (exact registration no. could not be recalled by the witness). He had further deposed that accused had jumped Dalip Singh red light. He had further deposed that thereafter Ct. Rameshwar stopped him, so he along with Ct. Praveen also went there. He had further deposed that he told the accused that he had jumped the red light so he would make his challan of Rs. 100/- and accused paid Rs. 100/- for the challan. He had further deposed that after sometime, accused again came at the spot and slapped to Ct. Rameshwar, so Ct. Praveen intervened the matter and accused also assaulted Ct. Praveen. He had further deposed that accused also abused Ct. Praveen and threatened that "main tumhe Jaan State Vs. Mohd. Shamim Khan FIR No. : 563/2016 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/353/332/506 IPC Page no.4 of 14 FIR No. 563/2016 State vs Mohd Shamim Khan CS No. 2040020/2016 se maar dunga". He had further deposed that they apprehended him and Ct. Rameshwar Dayal called at 100 number. He had further deposed that IO came at the spot and they produced accused before IO. He had further deposed that they also handed the challan documents to IO. The witness had correctly identified the accused present in the court and photographs Ex. P2 of bike of accused Splendour bearing no. DL3SAV2700. On seeking permission to ask leading questions, the witness had admitted that at the time of checking the vehicle of accused, he seized the driving licence of accused for 3 month. He had further admitted that accused also torn the police uniform of both the traffic constables. He had further admitted that IO seized the torn uniforms vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point C. He had further admitted that IO seized the bike in his presence vide seizure memo and IO also seized the challan copy of the accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/B and Ex. PW1/B respectively. He had further admitted that IO also arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/D. He had further deposed that medical examination of Ct. Rameshwar Dayal was conducted by the concerned doctor and MLC report was also prepared.
7. PW7 Rajender Singh, Recod clerk, AIIMS, Trauma Centre had deposed that the MLC bearing no. 568051 dated 25.06.2016 was prepared by Dr. Uday Pratap Singh which is Ex. PW5/A and the discharge summary of complainant Rameshwar Dayal is Ex. PW5/B which is electronically signed by Dr. Nikhil Chandran K. He had further deposed that the opinion no. 259/16 dated 3.9.2016 was given by Dr. Piyush Sharma . He had identified their signature as the witness had worked under their supervision.
8. PW8 Dr. Atish, Senior Resident, AIIMS Trauma Centre had deposed that he is State Vs. Mohd. Shamim Khan FIR No. : 563/2016 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/353/332/506 IPC Page no.5 of 14 FIR No. 563/2016 State vs Mohd Shamim Khan CS No. 2040020/2016 working as Senior Resident at JPNA. He had further deposed that as per MLC no 568051 dated 25.06.2016 Ex. PW5/A prepared by Dr. Uday Pratap Singh, patient has got abrasion over chest, both hands and back. He had further deposed that as per discharge summary Ex. PW5/B prepared by Dr. Nikhil Chandran, the patient was diagnosed with soft tissue injury. He had further deposed that as per the opinion no. 259/16 dated 03.09.2016 given by Dr. Piyush Sharma Ex. PW5/C, the injury was simple and kind of weapon used is blunt.
9. PW3 Ct. Bijender had deposed that in the month of July, 2016 he was on emergency duty and in the noon time, on receiving DD regarding quarrel with traffic staff, he along with IO went to the spot i.e. near the Ranjit Singh flyover, Hauz Khas where they met police officials complainant Ct. Rameshwar Dayal and Ct. Praveen and accused was also present there, He had further deposed that IO recorded statement of complainant and prepared rukka on the basis of same and handed over to him. He had further deposed that thereafter he went to PS and after lodging the FIR he came back to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. He had further deposed that he along with IO took accused to AIIMS Trauma Centre where medical examination was conducted by concerned doctor and came to the spot. On seeking permission to ask leading question to witness by ld. APP for the State, the witness admitted that IO seized the torn uniform of both the police officials vide seizure memo. He had further deposed that HC Subhash produced the motorcycle and DL of the accused to the IO and IO seized the same vide seizure Ex. OW3/A and Ex. PW3/B respectively both bearing his signatures at point B/. The witness had also identified the bike of accused and torn uniform. He had further deposed that medical examination of the complainant was conducted by concerned doctor on the same day.
State Vs. Mohd. Shamim Khan FIR No. : 563/2016 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 186/353/332/506 IPC Page no.6 of 14
FIR No. 563/2016 State vs Mohd Shamim Khan CS No. 2040020/2016
10. PW4 SI Dalbir Singh had deposed that on 25.06.2016 he was posted as AI at PS Hauz Khas and was on emergency duty. He had further deposed that on that day at about 4:48 pm, he received the DD no. 30A Ex. PW4/A regarding the quarrel with traffic police. He had further deposed that he along with Ct. Bijender went to the spot I.e. Dalip Singh Marg, Red Light Hauz Khas, where he met the traffic police officials namely Ct. Praveen and Ct. Rameshwar with accused. He had further deposed that Ct. Praveen handed over his custody of accused and motorcycle bearing no. DL3SAV2700. He had further deposed that he recorded the statement of Ct. Rameshwar and prepared the rukka on the basis of same. He had further deposed that he handed over rukka to Ct. Bijender who went to PS and after lodging the FIR, he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka Ex. PW4/B to him. He had further deposed that Ct. Rameshwar and Ct. Praveen handed over their torn uniform and thereafter he wrapped the same with white cloth and seal of DS and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. He had further deposed that he seized the bike of accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. He had further deposed that HC Subhash also came to the spot after few minutes from reaching and HC Subhash handed over the copy of challan and copy of acknowledgment for seizing driving licence for initiating suspension proceeding and the same is seized vide memo Ex. PW3/B. He had further deposed that he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/D and also prepared site plan at the instance of Ct. Rameshwar Dayal which is Ex PW4/C. He had further deposed that he sent Ct. Rameshwar with Ct. Bijender for his medical examination at AIIMS Hospital and went to the police station with the case property which was deposited in malkhana. He had further deposed that he obtained the complaint from the senior police officer u/s 195 CrPC and same was placed with the chargesheet and filed to the court. The witness had correctly identified State Vs. Mohd. Shamim Khan FIR No. : 563/2016 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/353/332/506 IPC Page no.7 of 14 FIR No. 563/2016 State vs Mohd Shamim Khan CS No. 2040020/2016 the accused present in the court and also the photographs Ex. P2 of Splendor bike bearing no; DL3SAV2700 and also the case property town torn uniforms Ex, P1.
11. PW6 Uma Shankar, Add DCP, Outer North, Delhi had deposed that on 31.08.2016, he was posted as ACP Traffic, South East district and received application through reader as IO moved an application for obtaining the complaint u/s 195 CrPC. He had further deposed that he perused the present FIR and fact of this case and gave written complaint u/s 195 CrPC which is Ex. PW6/A bearing his signature at point A. Statement of accused
12. The examination of accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the case. On the day of incident, as it was the Roja festival he was going in opposite direction and the traffic police officials stopped him and he apologized them for going in wrong side, but those police officials did not agree and told him that 'you have to pay Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 6000/- for the challan' and they again said that 'they will manage if he pay Rs. 500/- as bribe to them'. He gave Rs. 500/- to Ct. Rameshwar as bribe. However they made challan for Rs. 100/-. Police official impounded his DL for three months. So I requested them to return his Rs. 500/-. But they did not return his money. They got angry and called at 100 no. Other police officials were also came at the spot.
13. Accused did not lead defence evidence. Thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
14. Final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld.Counsel for State Vs. Mohd. Shamim Khan FIR No. : 563/2016 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/353/332/506 IPC Page no.8 of 14 FIR No. 563/2016 State vs Mohd Shamim Khan CS No. 2040020/2016 accused were heard and case file was perused.
15. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that accused is identified by all witnesses in the case. The motorcycle of accused is also identified by the accused. MLC is also on record to show the injury. There is no contradiction in the testimony of any witnesses. Do probable defense had been raised by the accused.
16. It is argued on behalf of accused that according to prosecution version accused was challaned thereafter he went away. After some time accused again came back and demanded his licence was not returned back on which accused started beating complainant. When three police persons were present how can accused beat them. It is further argued that SI Subhash took Rs. 500/- from accused instead of Rs. 100/- and accused was asking for Rs. 500/- on which dispute arose. It is further argued that no MLC of accused was conducted in the case. Further IO had not joined any public witness in the case. PW1 & PW2 had made improvements in their testimony. Nowhere it is stated in their statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC that accused tried to throw bricks on complainant. There are contradiction in the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3. None of them had seen HC Subhash issuing challan to accused. Further Ct. Subhash says that he do not know whether the amount was taken before him or not. MLC of complainant also reflects no injury or merely simple injury. Therefore, benefit of doubt must be given to accused.
17. Section 186 IPC provides punishment for 'obstructing public servant in discharge of public function'. In the said provision the expression whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in discharge of his public function is used. The word 'obstruction' is not confined to physical obstruction. It need not be an act of criminal force. The act need not be a violent one. It is enough if the act complained State Vs. Mohd. Shamim Khan FIR No. : 563/2016 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/353/332/506 IPC Page no.9 of 14 FIR No. 563/2016 State vs Mohd Shamim Khan CS No. 2040020/2016 of results in preventing a public servant in discharge of his lawful duties. Any act of causing impediment by unlawfully preventing public servant in discharge of his functions would be enough to attract section 186 IPC. In the case of State v. Babulal Gaurishanker Misar, AIR 1957 Bom10, it was held that to constitute 'obstruction' within sec 186 it is not necessary that there should be actual criminal force. It is sufficient if there is either a show of force or threat or any act preventing the execution go the process of the civil court.
18. Section 353 IPC is a distinct offence and prescribes punishment for using assault or criminal force to any person being a public servant in execution of his duty ordeter public servant from discharging their official duties. Section 332 IPC prescribes punishment for causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.
19. There is certain precondition attached with prosecution of section 186 IPC. U/s 195(1)(a) CrPC there is an express bar for the court to take cognizance of offence punishable u/s section 186 IPC and provides that there shall be a complaint made in writing by the public servant or by any other public servant to who he is subordinate. In Makardhwaj v. State AIR 1954 Orissa 175, it had been held that "noncompliance of the requirements of section 195 CrPC is fatal to the prosecution ifor offence punishable u/s 186 IPC." In the present case, PW6 Addl DCP Uma Shankar had deposed that he had given the written complaint u/s 195 CrPC which is Ex. PW6/A. The compliance of sec 195 IPC is met with in the present case.
20. The identity of accused in undisputed in the present case. All the prosecution witnesses had correctly identified the accused as the one who had given abused and given beatings to complainant Ct. Rameshwar Dayal and Ct. Praveen. The State Vs. Mohd. Shamim Khan FIR No. : 563/2016 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/353/332/506 IPC Page no.10 of 14 FIR No. 563/2016 State vs Mohd Shamim Khan CS No. 2040020/2016 motorcycle of accused in respect of which his challan was issued is also identified by all the accused persons.
21. PW1 Rameshwar Dayal is the most material witness of the prosecution case as he is the victim of offence and entire case rest upon his testimony. I have carefully perused the testimony of the complainant as well as his complaint Ex. PW1/A. A careful perusal of the testimony of complainant had remained unimpeached and uncontroverted despite extensive grilling in cross examination. In his testimony PW1 complainant had narrated the entire incident. As per the his version, accused was coming from the wrong side and also jumped the red light. When he stopped him, challan was issued against him by HC Subhash who were deputed at Traffic circle Hauz Khas and his licence was also impounded by them. After sometime accused again came and started asking about how will he get the license back and he then tried to abuse filthily to him and also to HC Praveen and thereafter he caught the uniform and started beating him. When HC Praveen tried to save him, accused tore uniform. There appears no contradiction in the testimony of PW1 complainant Rameshwar Dayal. PW2 Ct. Praveen and PW HC Subhash who were also present at the time of alleged incident had also supported the entire version of PW1 Rameshwar Dayal. Their testimony had also been consistent throughout that accused given beating to Ct. Rameshwar Dayal and Ct. Praveen.
22. It is clear from the record of the case that accused was issued challan by HC Subhash for jumping red light. HC Subhash along with PW1 Ct. Ramshwar Dayal and PW3 Ct Praveen were admittedly posted on alleged date of incident at Hauz has Traffic Circle at Choudary Dalip Singh Marg. The factum of accused being issued challan of Rs. 100/- for jumping red light is also uncontroverted. The copy of State Vs. Mohd. Shamim Khan FIR No. : 563/2016 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/353/332/506 IPC Page no.11 of 14 FIR No. 563/2016 State vs Mohd Shamim Khan CS No. 2040020/2016 challan is also filed on record as Ex. PW1/B. It is also undisputed that the licence of accused was seized by HC Subhash for allegedly violating the traffic rules. The copy of suspension proceedings of driving licence of accused is also filed on record as Ex. PW1/C in support of same. Since Ct. Rameshwar Dayal had stopped that accused as he was coming from wrong side and jumped the red light, he was definitely discharging part of his official duty. HC Subhash had also issued challan against accused in discharge of his official duty. The act of seizing licence of accused was also part of discharge of official duty. Thus, clearly PW1 complainant, PW2 Praveen and PW HC Subhash were acting in discharge of their duty at the time of alleged offence.
23. It is also clear from the record that accused Mohd. Shamim Khan came back to Ct. Rameshwar Dayal after his licence was seized and had asked him where he would get licence from and thereafter he had started given beatings to Ct. Rameshwar Dayal. All the witnesses had consistently deposed in this regard. MLC of PW1 Rameshwar Dayal is also on record to suggest that he had received injury though simple in nature. There is further nothing on record to assume that those injury are self inflicted in nature. Thus the factum of causing hurt to complainant had also remained uncontroverted.
24. It is not the defense of accused that HC Subhash had illegally seized the license of complainant. The contention raised by ld. counsel for accused is that HC Rameshwar had taken Rs. 500/- from accused instead of Rs. 100/- as bribe. In his cross examination PW1 Rameshwar Dayal has stated that the authority to issue the challan was with HC Subhash Chand and he had issued the challan and he collected amount of challan and handed over the challan receipt to accused. he had also State Vs. Mohd. Shamim Khan FIR No. : 563/2016 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/353/332/506 IPC Page no.12 of 14 FIR No. 563/2016 State vs Mohd Shamim Khan CS No. 2040020/2016 admitted that HC Subhash had not taken challan amount in his presence. However he had denied the suggestion put forth by ld. counsel for accused that HC Subhash has not handed over the challan to the accused in his presence. He had also denied the suggestion that Rs. 500/- were demanded from the accused as illegal gratification for not issuing the challan. He had also denied the suggestion that he had beaten the accused on demanding the balance money. In his cross examination PW2 Ct. Praveen has stated that the authority to issue the challan was with PW HC Subhash Chand. PW1 Ct. Rameshwar had merely stopped the accused while he was jumping red light. According to version PW5 HC Subhash also accused was stopped by Ct. Rameshwar. He along with Ct. Praveen reached as soon as the accused was stopped. When the challan was issue by PW5 HC Subhash, the amount for the challan must have also been collected by him. There is no probable reason to assume why Ct. Rameshwar must be demanding Rs. 500/- as bribe instead of Rs. 100/- when he was not even issuing challan. No witness is also led by accused in defence of his plea. However considering the circumstances of the case it may be possible that accused must himself be offering bribe to Ct. Rameshwar when he was trying to stop him or his license was going to be seized. The plea of defense of accused in his statement u/s 313 CrPC is that when that demanded to return his Rs. 500/-, police official did not return him and they got angry and they called 100 number. Accused had not examined any defense witness in this regard. Thus the plea of accused also seems improbable.
25. It is well settled that in a criminal trial the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Any contradiction or iota of proof in favour of accused persons can completely dismantle the case of prosecution. In the present case there are cogent material available on record to suggest that accused Mohd Shamim Khan had assaulted and caused hurt to Ct. Rameshwar Dayal State Vs. Mohd. Shamim Khan FIR No. : 563/2016 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/353/332/506 IPC Page no.13 of 14 FIR No. 563/2016 State vs Mohd Shamim Khan CS No. 2040020/2016 while he was discharging his lawful duty. Therefore, he had also obstructed the public service discharging his lawful duty.
Conclusion & Decision
26. In these circumstances and in view of the aforementioned discussion, I hold that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused Mohd. Shamim Khan beyond all reasonable doubts. Accused Mohd. Shamim Khan is accordingly convicted for offence u/s 186/332/352 IPC. Accused shall be heard in the point of sentencing separately.
Announced in the open court (VIJAYSHREE RATHORE) In Delhi on 07.01.2023 MM-06, SOUTH/SAKET DELHI State Vs. Mohd. Shamim Khan FIR No. : 563/2016 PS Hauz Khas U/s 186/353/332/506 IPC Page no.14 of 14