Delhi District Court
State vs Ravindra Singh on 16 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 2039202/2016
FIR No. : 693/2015
Police Station : Saket
Section(s) : 186/353 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
Vs.
Ravindra Singh
S/o Sh. Sukhvir Singh
R/o Village Bharsi, PS Patela
Kerana, Distt. Mujaffar Nagar (UP) .... Accused
1.Name of Complainant : Ct. Satish 2. Name of Accused : Ravindra Singh 3. Offence complained of or proved : 186/353 IPC 4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty 5. Date of commission of offence : 10.06.2015 6. Date of Filing of case : 07.10.2016 7. Date of Reserving Order : 27.03.2025 8. Date of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 9. Final Order : Convicted Argued by - Ld. APP for the State. Ld. Counsel for the accused. State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 1 of 23 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be denied without evidence."
Christopher Hitchens.
Accused set forth in the defence that he has been falsely implicated in the case, for he refused to succumb to the demand of the complainant for illegal gratification but brought on record not even an iota of evidence to prove this. On the other hand, prosecution successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, accused is convicted.
FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. Succinctly stated, it is the case of prosecution that on 10.06.2015, at about 03.10 pm, near Police Training School, Traffic Light, Lado Sarai, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Saket, the accused voluntarily obstructed complainant Ct. Satish Kumar, a public servant, in discharge of his public functions, assaulted and used criminal force against him with intent to deter him from discharging his duties, and also voluntarily caused hurt to him with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duties as such public servant. Thus, it is alleged that the accused committed offence punishable u/s 186/353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC").
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. Cognizance was taken, and he was summoned to face trial. Copy of charge- sheet was supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter, charge was framed against him u/s 186/353 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of PE.
State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 2 of 23
3. In support of its version, prosecution has examined seven witnesses:
PW Name of PW Nature of Testimony
PW1 Retired SI Ved Prakash Eyewitness
PW2 Monu Poddar Eyewitness
PW3 HC Satish Kumar Complainant
PW4 HC Dinesh Eyewitness
PW5 HC Rajesh Kumar Eyewitness
PW6 HC Pawan Malik Eyewitness
PW7 Inspector Durgadas IO
4. Accused admitted, as per Section 294 CrPC, the genuineness of:
1 Endorsement by DO Ex. A1 2 FIR No. 693 /2015 Ex. A2 3 Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex. A3 4 MLC No. 496011/2015 conducted by Dr. Deepak Ex. A4 Prakash
5 MLC No. 496011/2015 conducted by Dr. Shankar Ex. A5 6 Physical Inspection Report of offending vehicle Ex. A6 conducted by Sh. Amitosh Kumar 7 Inspection Report of offending vehicle conducted by Sh.
Ex. A7 Jayesh Bhardwaj 8 Inspection Report of offending vehicle conducted by Sh.
Ex. A8 Rishikesh Meena 9 DD No. 25A dated 10.06.2015 Ex. A9 10 DD NO. 29A dated 10.06.2015 Ex. A10 11 DD No. 5, 6, 16 dated 10.06.2015 Ex. A11 12 Complaint u/s 195 CrPC Ex. A12 State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 3 of 23 4.1 In view of the above said admission, rest of the prosecution witnesses, all formal in nature, were dropped from the list of witnesses to be examined. PE was closed thereafter.
5. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate statement of accused was recorded under Section 281/313 CrPC, wherein he, inter alia, stated as under:
"I have been wrongly implicated in the case. On the relevant date, I was travelling from AIIMS towards Gurugram. The road had heavy traffic. There was a traffic policeman standing on the left side of the road, who was visible to me. However, Ct. Satish was standing on the divider, concealed between trees. I could not see him. There was a big TSR driving in front of me as well. Suddenly, Ct. Satish jumped in front of my vehicle. I had to abruptly stop my vehicle which was an Innova car. Because I had to apply brakes all of a sudden, by the time the vehicle stopped, it was very close to Ct. Satish, and due to slight impact, Ct. Satish fell on the bonut of my car. Thereafter, I was falsely implicated in the case. I never assaulted or used criminal force against Ct. Satish or any other police officials. In fact, police officials picked up a fight with me because I refused to comply with their demand for bribe. I was made to park my vehicle on the side, and was taken to a lane where I was badly thrashed. I had to undergo medical treatment after the same, including dental treatment. I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case."
6. Accused did not lead any DE in the affirmative. Accordingly, DE was closed vide order dated 27.03.2025.
7. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of final arguments. Arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
8. Before proceeding further, it shall be opposite to advert to the relevant provisions of law. Section 186 IPC is reproduced for ready State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 4 of 23 reference -
Section 186 IPC 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."
Section 353 IPC provides -
Section 353 IPC 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 to 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."
9. Qua the aforesaid provisions, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in Durgacharan Naik Vs. State of Orissa 1966 AIR 1775, "It is true that most of the allegations in this case upon which the charge under s. 353, Indian Penal Code is based are the same as those constituting the charge under s. 186, Indian Penal Code but it cannot be ignored that Sections 186 and 353, Indian Penal Code relate to two distinct offences and while the offence under the latter section is a cognizable offence, the one under the former section is not so. The ingredients of the two offences are also distinct. Section 186, Indian Penal Code is applicable to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the discharge of his public functions but under s. 353, Indian Penal Code the ingredient of assault or State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 5 of 23 use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary. The quality of the two offences is also different. Section 186 occurs in Ch. X of the Indian Penal Code dealing with Contempts of the lawful authority of public servants, while s. 353 occurs in Ch. XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body. It is well-established that s. 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same set of facts but which is not within the ambit of that section.
10. In the case at hand, prosecution has alleged both obstruction by accused of public servants discharging his duties, and assault committed, for such obstruction.
11. Indeed by virtue of Section 195 CrPC, cognizance of the offence under Section 186 IPC can only be taken on the basis of complaint filed by a public servant. In the instant case, the complaint filed by the public servant in terms of Section 195 CrPC has been admitted by the accused, being Ex A12. To this extent, the requirement of law stands satisfied. The testimonies of prosecution intervenes shall now be examined and to ascertain if prosecution could prove the other ingredients of offense against the accused as well.
12. The fulcrum of the case of prosecution is the testimony of the complainant. Complainant HC Satish Kumar testified as PW3 that he was posted as a Constable at Traffic Circle, Saket on 10.06.2015. He testified that ZO SI Ved Prakash, Ct. Dinesh, Ct. Rajesh, Ct. Pawan were also posted State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 6 of 23 on duty at PTS Red Light, Malviya Nagar on the said date. He testified that about 02:45 PM, the traffic signal suddenly failed due to disconnection of power supply, upon which they started manually managing the traffic on the road. He testified that Ct. Dinesh and Ct. Rajesh were present on both sides, and ZO SI Ved Prakash and Ct. Pawan were on Aurvindo Marg and Press Enclave road side, he himself was standing on the centre point of road, while regulating traffic. He testified that about 03:10 PM, one Innova car, white in colour, which was coming from the side of IIT, was signaled by him to stop, but the car did not stop, and it hit him, on account of which he fell on the bonnet of the car, and caught hold of the car wipers. He testified that accused continued to drive the car at a very high speed in a zigzag manner, and intermittently applied emergency brakes also with the intention of causing him to fall from the bonnet. He testified that he then called out for help, after which one car blocked the way of the Innova car, and the accused hit his car in the said vehicle. He also testified that before stopping, the accused had dragged him for a distance of about 200-300 metres till Firni Road red light, Lado Sarai. He testified that he sustained injury in his left leg and back due in the incident. He also testified that the accused was trying to flee the spot, but was apprehended by other police associates in his presence. He testified that a call to the PCR was then made by some unknown person, and he was shifted to AIIMS for his medical examination. He testified that the registration number of the said offending vehicle is UP14CT8204, and the name of the accused was revealed to be Ravindra. He further testified that after being discharged from the hospital, he was taken to PS, where his statement was recorded, upon which the subject FIR was registered, being Ex PW3/E. He also testified that at the time of the State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 7 of 23 incident, a lady who was driving her scooty at the spot had broken the glass of the offending car using her helmet, but the driver of the scooty and the second car which had caused the accused to stop his car had left the spot, and their registration number or names, addresses, could not be noted down. In his testimony, the witness relied upon the seizure memo of the Innova car (offending car), the documents of the said vehicle, as well as the seizure memo of the driving licence of the accused being Ex PW3/B, PW3/C and PW3/D respectively. He also stated that the accused was arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex PW3/E and was personally searched vide memo Ex PW3/F. The witness correctly identified the accused in his testimony, and also the offending vehicle from the photographs Ex P1(Colly). It is to be noted that during the recording of the testimony of the witness, the Court observed that the witness had scribbled the registration number of the offending car on his palm. Ld. counsel for the accused waxed eloquent that for this reason, the testimony of the witness in its entirety is liable to be discarded. In the considered opinion of this Court, while the act of the witness in scribbling the registration number of the offending vehicle on his hand beforehand, and then reading it out during the testimony is certainly questionable, the same cannot be made the basis for discarding the testimony of the witness in toto. The perusal of testimony of the witness reveals that he has given an eidetic account of the incident as it unfolded, and merely because of a slight transgression, his testimony cannot be rejected entirely. It is further seen that while in the initial complaint, the complainant had not stated that the second car that had caused the offending vehicle to stop by blocking its way was hit by the offending vehicle, the witness improved his testimony and stated that there was an impact between State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 8 of 23 the two cars, because of which the second car had also suffered certain damage. Now, at this stage, the inspection report of the offending vehicle Ex A6, A7 and A8 assumes relevance. Its perusal reveals that the offending vehicle had no dent or damage on the front bumper or bonnet, which leads to the inference that the same had not collided with another car. The testimony of PW3 to this extent is clearly an improvement. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, some improvements and embellishments in the testimonies of witnesses are natural. The over zealousness of the witness in ensuring that the accused is convicted can some times lead to certain embellishments in the testimony, but not every improvement in the testimony can be used to discredit the witness, where his testimony is otherwise found to be credible qua material aspects of the case. When the entire testimony of PW3 is scrutinized, it is seen that the same possesses a ring of truth around it. In his cross examination, he testified that the accused was alone in the offending vehicle. No contrary suggestion was given to him. Further, he testified that at the time of the incident on the road from which the offending vehicle was coming, there were no other cars. Nothing to discredit the testimony of the witness was brought on record by the accused. Further, a slew of questions was put to the witness regarding the presence of public witnesses at the spot, whether the red light next from the spot of the incident was working or not, the exact duration of time for which the lady on the scooty was present at the spot, who ended up breaking the mirror of the windscreen of the offending vehicle to which the witness replied that he cannot answer any of these questions because he was injured and hopeless at the time. He also truthfully testified that he did not object to the lady w.r.t. breaking of the mirror of the windscreen of the State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 9 of 23 vehicle. All of these answers appear to be reasonable, in view of the nature of the incident that had unfolded. The complainant could not be expected to stop somebody from damaging the offending vehicle, or to note down minute details of his surroundings when he himself was hanging on the bonnet of the car, fearful for his own life. The fact that the witness stated that he did not see any other person beating up the accused or does not know as to after what delay the PCR reached the spot in no way discredits the witness and in fact, adds to the truthfulness of the witness, who being harassed after such an incident was not truthfully expected to remember such innocuous details. Now, certain suggestions were put to the witness, predominantly qua of the defence that the accused was stopped, and his car was damaged by police officials with a brick after he refused to succumb to their demands for illegal gratification. All such suggestions were denied by the witness. It is seen that the accused has nowhere put the case that because he was harassed, he had also taken any action against any police officer. He has not explained as to why he did not raise a hue and cry when he was being beaten up or his car was being damaged, and why did he not take recourse to legal remedies if such was the case. Merely putting certain suggestions to the witness that the incident unfolded in a different manner is neither here nor there. Further, certain questions were put to the witness regarding the preparation of the site plan by the IO in his presence to which the witness testified that the same was not prepared in his presence and that he does not remember if the IO had made him identify the spot after the incident. Given the fact that the witness has described the place of the incident with minute details, the fact that he admitted in his cross examination that the site plan was not made in his presence, in no way helps State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 10 of 23 the case of the accused.
13. The testimony of the witness is corroborated by the testimony of PW2 Manu Poddar as well. He testified that he used to sell helmets on Firni Road, Lado Sarai in New Delhi at the relevant time. He stated that on the day of the incident, at about 03:15 PM, he saw one car of the make Innova driven at a high speed, and noticed that one police official was hanging on the bonnet of the car by holding the wiper. He testified that in the meantime, one more car came, and blocked the way of the offending vehicle, and in the meantime, a lady also came on a scooty and broke the front windshield of the alleged car. He testified that thereafter traffic police officials reached the spot. He correctly identified the offending vehicle from the photographs, Ex P1 (Colly). The accused attempted to challenge the testimony of the witness by establishing that he is a planted witness and did not actually see the incident, but unsuccessfully so. The witness admitted in his cross examination that he was running the said shop on rent and stated that while he does not know the name of the owner of the shop, he specified that he used to deposit the rent with one Babu Lal. He testified that he does not have any document w.r.t. allotment/approval of the premises from MCD, but at the same time volunteered that the person to whom the said shop belongs, must have had some licence or authorization. This explanation is reasonable. In his cross examination, it was suggested to the witness that because he was running an illegal khokha/shop, he is deposing falsely at the instance of police officials. Implicit in this suggestion is the admission of the accused that the witness was indeed running such a shop at the relevant time and he could have witnessed the incident. Even otherwise, State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 11 of 23 the testimony of the witness seems to be creditworthy. The witness truthfully said that he cannot say as to how many passengers were there in the offending vehicle. Given the vantage point of the witness, it would have been anywhere difficult for him to ascertain how many people were sitting inside the car. His failure to specify the registration number and make of the car, which had blocked the way of the offending vehicle, or to specify how many people were there in the second car, in no way discredits the testimony of the witness, as being in check qua the events unfolding before him he was not expected to note down such details. In fact, it would have been behavior out of the ordinary for the witness if he had ended up noting down such details in anticipation that he would be required to specify the same to concerned authorities some time in the future. Broadly, the witness supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that the offending vehicle was stopped by one other vehicle, which blocked its way, and that a lady had broken the front windshield of the offending vehicle. The case of the prosecution is duly supported by the testimony of this witness.
14. Case of the prosecution is further supported by the testimonies of the remaining eyewitnesses, PW1 SI Ved Prakash, PW4 HC Dinesh, PW5 HC Rajesh Kumar, and PW6 HC Pawan Malik. All of them testified in tandem with each other, that they were doing their duties of managing traffic at T Point PTS Malviya Nagar, when at about 03.00 PM, the offending vehicle bearing registration number UP14CT8204 came from the side of AIIMS and was signaled to stop by Ct. Satish. All of them testified that the offending vehicle failed to stop and, in fact, hit Ct. Satish, who on account of the impact, fell down on the bonnet of the vehicle, and somehow State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 12 of 23 managed to catch hold of the wiper blades while being dragged ahead by the vehicle. All of them testified that by the time they reached the spot, some private vehicles had caused the offending vehicle to stop, and the driver of the same was trying to flee but was caught hold by them. They also testified that one lady passing through the road on her scooty had hit the windscreen of the offending vehicle with her helmet with a view to cause the offending vehicle to stop. All of them stated that thereafter, a call to the PCR was made upon which the IO reached the spot. PW4, PW5, and PW6 correctly identified offending vehicle from the photographs thereof Ex P1 (Colly). During their cross examinations as well, the witnesses remained largely consistent to the prosecution version.
15. PW1 testified that only two or three vehicles were in front of the offending vehicle at the relevant time, and there was not a huge rush at the road, although he had not noticed the exact number of the vehicles. PW1 was not expected to note down the traffic flow of the road in anticipation that an incident as the one complained of would take place. The said answer is no way dents the prosecution case. The witness was further asked about the registration of the other car which had helped block the offending vehicle as well as the scooty. The witness failed to provide the registration number of the two vehicles, or also the make of the said vehicles. However, he testified that he was focusing on running behind the offending vehicle and reached the spot as soon as he could. He also stated that he did not stop the lady on the scooty from damaging the offending vehicle as he was still at some distance from the offending vehicle when the said lady damaged the offending vehicle. The explanation given by the witness of this State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 13 of 23 circumstance also appears to be reasonable. Further, while it can certainly be said to be a dent in the case of prosecution that the witness failed to note down the number of the car which had blocked the offending vehicle, or the registration number of the scooty, or failed to note down the details of the drivers thereof, it is to be remembered that the prosecution has to prove its case against the accused beyond every reasonable doubt, and not beyond every doubt. The fact that the details of the two vehicles are not on record is certainly a gap in the case of prosecution, but not such a gap as would make the prosecution case liable to be discarded, given the fact that all the eyewitnesses of the case have deposed about the incident on similar lines, without any material contradictions, inter se. Now, PW1 also testified that he had run behind the offending vehicle, and he was so horrified about the incident that he did not note the time that it took him to reach the spot where the offending vehicle was finally intercepted. This explanation, given the manner in which the incident unfolded, also appears to be a rational one. To this witness also, a series of suggestions were put by the accused to the extent that the accused has been implicated in the case as he had no RC at the relevant time because of which he was asked by the police officials for illegal gratification, which he refused to provide them. It was also suggested to the witness, that the accused had shown the report of lost RC of the said date to the police officials as well. Pertinently, neither the accused took any action against the police officials for their act of demanding illegal gratification, even after his vehicle was damaged by the police officials, allegedly, deliberately, nor did he even bring on record the copy of the report/NCR regarding the loss of his RC to corroborate his version in any manner. Minus the same, the suggestions given by the accused to the State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 14 of 23 witness are bereft of any probative value and are liable to be discarded as such.
16. PW4 also remained steadfast qua his version, which is in sync with the prosecution case, during his cross-examination. He admitted that he could not note down the registration number of the vehicle which had blocked the offending vehicle, but stated that the same had a J&K State registration. The witness did not try to fill up any gaps in his cross- examination, and truthfully stated he does not remember the colour of the said vehicle. Further, he stated that the photographs of the offending vehicle were taken by the IO in his presence, and that his statement was also recorded at the spot. He denied the suggestion that the accused was beaten up by police officials, or that windscreen of the offending vehicle was broken by him along with Ct. Satish. In as much as even the said witness did not note down the registration number, or the details of the driver of the car that had blocked the offending vehicle, or that of the scooty alluded to above, there are certain off roadings in his testimony, but given the fact that the witness himself remained consistent with the prosecution story, and has testified regarding the events of the incident as it unfolded, without any material deviations from the prosecution story, his testimony cannot be disbelieved merely for lack of independent corroboration, or for want of details as aforesaid. While PW3/complainant testified to the effect that the offending vehicle had hit the car that had blocked its way, PW4 stated that the said two vehicles had not collided with each other. The version of PW4 appears to be believable, in view of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle (Ex A6 to A8). PW3 has improved upon his testimony, as State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 15 of 23 already noted, to this extent, but the said improvement is not a major one, and in any event, PW4, being the eyewitness has correctly testified qua this fact, which fortifies the prosecution version.
17. In his cross-examination, PW4 stated that Ct. Satish did not check the DL and other documents of the accused in his presence. Similarly, PW5 in his cross-examination testified that in his presence, the accused never showed any NCR regarding the loss of the RC of the vehicle to Ct. Satish in his presence. The entire defence of the accused centres around the fact that he was asked to produce certain documents regarding the offending vehicle, and on his failure to do so, illegal gratification was demanded from him. It is his defence that when he failed to comply with the demand of illegal gratification, he was mercilessly beaten up. However, accused has failed to place on record the copy of the NCR, or any medical document which would show that he suffered some injuries after being so beaten up. He has merely relied on certain suggestion to establish the said defence, but there is no gainsaying that suggestions do not have probative value. Now, PW5 also admitted that he did not not down the registration number, or the name of the driver of the car which had blocked the way of the offending vehicle, but stated that the same had J&K registration number. He also truthfully stated that he did not note down the name of the lady who was on the scooty, and had broken the windscreen of the offending vehicle, or the particulars of such scooty. He stated that the lady as well as the driver of the other car both left the spot while he as well as the other eyewitnesses were apprehending the accused. On similar lines, PW6 testified that the details as aforementioned could not be noted down, as both the vehicles had left the State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 16 of 23 spot while the accused was being apprehended.
18. There are certain inconsistencies present in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. While PW4 has stated that the photographs of the offending vehicle was clicked at the spot in his present, PW6 has testified to the contrary. PW5 stated that the photographs were not taken in his presence. However, these inconsistencies are minor in nature. The witnesses have remained consistent regarding the broad contours of the prosecution case. All of them have testified consistently regarding the incident as it unfolded, and the manner in which the accused was apprehended. Their consistent and accurate testimonies cannot be disbelieved in any manner, because they are police officials. There is no presumption in law that testimonies of police witnesses are less believable than the testimonies of any other witnesses.
19. What lends further credence to the case of prosecution is the fact that when the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313/281 CrPC, he himself admitted the incident. He stated that he was asked to stop his vehicle by Ct. Satish/complainant, but his view was obstructed, and because of the same, he ended up hitting the complainant, who fell on the bonnet of his car. He has admitted the genesis of the incident, in line with the prosecution case. He nowhere stated that he was made to stop his vehicle, and his documents were demanded by the police officials. While he stated that he was beaten up badly later on, from the fact that he categorically admitted that he could not control his vehicle, that Ct. Satish fell on his car, the guilt of accused stands established. During the trial, he did not take the defence that Ct. Satish fell on his vehicle mistakenly, and rather took the defence that no such incident as alleged happened. During his statement State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 17 of 23 recorded u/s 313/281 CrPC, he changed his stance, which shows the weakness of his defence, but ended up admitting the genesis of the incident.
20. It is trite that statement of the accused recorded u/s 313 CrPC can be looked into, for the purpose of ascertaining the guilt of the accused. Reliance at this juncture can be placed on Md. Aslam vs State, CRL. A. No. 214/2016, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (DOD 25.04.2016), wherein it was held as under:
"6.47 Answers given in statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. have also some relevance. Though, such statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence since it is not recorded on oath nor it is subjected to any cross examination, yet such statement can, be taken into consideration, at the trial, against the accused for the purpose of arriving at the guilt or otherwise of the accused. Since no oath is administered to the accused, the statements made by the accused will not be, strictly speaking, evidence. Sub-section (3) also says that the accused shall not render himself liable to punishment if he give false answer. But, then comes sub-section (4), which provides that answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. Thus, the answers given by the accused, in response to his examination, under Section 313, can be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial. This much is clear on a plain reading of the above sub-section. Therefore, though not strictly construed as evidence, sub-section (4) permits that it may be taken into consideration in the said inquiry or trial. However, such self- incriminating statement indicting co-accused cannot be said to be sufficient in itself. The court can rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty but such statement should not be considered in isolation but always in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution. Reference be made to SANATAN NASKER VS. STATE OF BENGAL AIR 2010 SC 3570."
Further, in N.V. Subba Rao vs. State, through Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, 2013 (2) SCC 162, it was held as under:
State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 18 of 23 "44. Finally, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for A-1 that the statement or answers to the questions under Section 313 of the Code cannot be the basis for conviction of the accused. We have already noted that the prosecution has not only relied on the answers given by the accused but also placed acceptable oral and documentary evidence on record to substantiate the charge. We hold that the statement under Section 313 of the Code can be a relevant consideration for the courts to examine, particularly, when the prosecution has been able to establish the chain of events."
21. Testimony of IO Inspector Durgadas/PW7 further fortifies the case of prosecution. The IO testified that he reached the spot upon receipt of DD no. 25A dated 10.06.2015, along with Ct. Sunil, where he found the offending vehicle that is Innova car bearing registration no. UP14CT8204 parked. He testified that SI Ved Prakash handed over the custody of the accused to him, and told him that he had hit complainant/Ct. Satish who had been taken to the hospital for his treatment. He testified that he then went to the hospital where he collected the MLC of the injured and testified that as per the opinion of the doctor, the injured was fit for giving his statement to the police. He testified that he then recorded statement of the injured, and thereafter came back to the spot with Ct. Satish, and prepared rukka which contains his endorsement, Ex PW3/A. He testified that he then sent Ct. Sunil to the PS to register the case, and thereby the site plans were prepared at the instance of the complainant, being Ex PW7/A, and Ex PW7/B. He also testified the codal formalities of the case performed by him, such as preparation of the seizure memo of the offending vehicle and related documents vide memos Ex PW3/A, PW3/B and PW3/C, arrest of the accused vide memo Ex PW3/E as well as his personal search conducted vide memo Ex PW3/F. He testified that he also prepared the age memo of the accused Ex PW7/C, and thereafter examined the witnesses of the case.
State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 19 of 23 He further identified the offending vehicle correctly from the photographs Ex P1. He also testified that inspection of the vehicle was done by CFSL personnel, and the report thereof is Ex A6, A7 and A8. The witness correctly identified the accused. In his cross examination, the witness stated that when he reached the spot of the incident, he did not record the statement of any public witness, but volunteered that the statement of public witness was recorded after the registration of the case. He accepted as correct the suggestion that the accused did not have the original RC of the offending vehicle, and that he had shown the NCR of the RC to him. Ld. counsel for the accused had argued that this portion of the testimony of the witness shows that the defence taken by the accused is credible, and he was falsely implicated in the case because he could not show the original RC of his vehicle, and also did not succumb to the demands of illegal gratification made to him. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the offending vehicle was seized, the IO was duty bound to check if the accused has relevant documents of the same. The fact that the documents were checked by the IO at a later stage does not prove in any manner the defence taken by the accused that the inception of the incident was the fact that he could not produce the documents of the vehicle. In fact, as already discussed in the preceding portions of this judgment, the accused has already admitted that the incident originated when he happened to hit Ct. Satish, although as per the version of the accused, which also could never be substantiated by him, the same was an accident. The IO also stated that he has no knowledge if any brick was lying in the offending vehicle, or that if any brick was used for breaking the side glass of the offending vehicle. Given the fact that the IO reached the spot much after the windscreen of the offending vehicle had State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 20 of 23 already been broken, he could have had no knowledge if any brick was used to break the windscreen of the offending vehicle. Further, the accused is seen to have admitted the report of CFSL, Ex A6, A7 and A8, as per which no other clue material could be detected during the examination of the offending vehicle. If at all, the windscreen of the vehicle was broken with a brick, surely the residue of the brick could have been found inside the vehicle. Such is not the case, as per the FSL report, which has remained uncontroverted. As such therefore, the defence of the accused that the police officials had broken the windscreen of the vehicle with a brick can easily be set at a naught. Certain contrary suggestions as to how the dispute between the parties commenced was also given to the IO, which were duly denied by the witness. Now, since the witness was not present at the time when the incident unfolded, such suggestions being put to the witness anyway does not further the case of the accused in any manner. In his cross examination, the witness also categorically stated that he has not registered any complaint of the accused as no such complaint was given by the accused. No contrary suggestion to this was given to the witness as well. If indeed the accused was aggrieved by the act of any police officials thrashing him, after demanding illegal gratification for him, the accused could have very well initiated an action against the police officials, especially in the wake of the fact that an FIR had been registered against him. However, the accused did not do so, and has merely relied on a few stray suggestions given to the witnesses, which do not carry any weight. Certain ambiguity is noticeable in the cross examination of the witness in as much as it was suggested to him at one place that there was no witness present at the spot by the name of Monu Poddar, and later, it was suggested to the witness that a number of State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 21 of 23 public persons were present at the spot. If such were the case that a number of people were present at the spot where the accused was allegedly thrashed by police officials, it is not clear as to why the accused would not raise a hue and cry for help from the said public persons. This further discredits his defence and helps the case of prosecution. As regards the presence of Monu Poddar at the spot, his testimony has already been scrutinized by the Court, and has been found to be reliable.
22. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it can easily be established that while the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the relevant day, he was asked to stop and instead of doing so, he continued to drive his vehicle, and ended up hitting the complainant/Ct. Satish. It is also clear that because of the impact Ct. Satish fell on the bonnet of the car, and was dragged for a distance of about 200 to 300 metres before the offending vehicle was made to stop. It also stands established that at the time of the incident, Ct. Satish was discharging his duties as a police constable, and was managing the traffic. The act of the accused obstructed him in his official duties, and thereby the accused is seen to have committed the offence punishable u/s 186 IPC. It is also seen that the accused continued to recklessly drive the vehicle even after Ct. Satish fell on the bonnet of the same, and thereby ended using criminal force against the public servant. Now, Ct. Satish is seen to have not sustained any external injuries as per the MLC Ex A5, but it is clear from the testimony that he did suffer hurt. In any event, it is not the requirement of Section 353 IPC that the public servant must have suffered an injury, and where it is seen that he was assaulted or criminal force was used against him to deter him from discharging his State vs. Ravindra Singh FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 22 of 23 duties, the liability of accused for the said offence can also be affixed. As such, it is seen that the accused committed the offence punishable u/s 353 IPC as well.
23. In conclusion, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 186/353 IPC. He be heard separately on the point of sentence.
24. Copy of the judgment be provided to the convict free of cost.
Digitally
Pronounced in open Court on signed by
16.05.2025 in the presence Medha Medha Arya
Date:
of accused. Arya 2025.05.16
16:43:09
+0530
(Medha Arya)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
16.05.2025
State vs. Ravindra Singh
FIR No. 693/2015, PS: Saket Page 23 of 23