Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravi & Ors. on 8 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH:ACMM-02
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. Ravi & Ors.
FIR No. 162/07
New Case No. 297523/16
U/s : 186/332/341/353/34 IPC
P.S. : Gulabi Bagh
Date of Institution : 15.02.2008
Date on which case reserved for Judgment : 08.01.2019
Date of judgment : 08.01.2019
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 161/2007
2.Date of the Commission : 14.09.2007
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : 1. Ravi Kumar
S/o Sh. Kuldeep Rai
R/o H.No. 3854, Near Kali Mandir,
Tis Hazari, Delhi.
2. Gokal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Matri Singh
R/o H. No. B-30/2, Rama Garden,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94.
3. Akash Kumar
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 1 of 25
R/o H. NO. A2/873, South Gamri,
Gali No. 4, Delhi- 53.
4. Sushil Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Dayal Singh
R/o H. No. 178A, Street No. 4/2,
Karawal Nagar Extension, Delhi-94.
4.Offence complained of : 186/332/341/353/34 IPC
5.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
6.Final order : Convicted
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 14.09.207 at about 11.30 AM, Ravi Kumar alongwith co-accused persons namely Sushil Kumar, Gokal Singh and Akash Kumar in furtherance of their common intention at road no. 40, near Bus stop Gulabi Bagh, DDA Flats, within the jurisdiction of PS Gulabi Bagh, Delhi they wrongfully restrained the complainant ASI Ranbir Singh and voluntarily obstructed him in discharge of his public functions and all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention used criminal force against the above named complainant in the execution of his duty as a public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter the above named complainant from discharging his duty as public servant and all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention also voluntarily caused hurt to the person of the complainant above named in the discharge of his duty as public servant, FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 2 of 25 or with intent to present or deter the above named complainant from discharging his duty as public servant thereby all accused persons committed offences punishable u/s 186/332/341/353/34 IPC.
2. On the basis of the chargesheet, charge of offence U/s 186/332/341/353/34 IPC was framed against accused persons namely Ravi Kumar, Sushil Kumar, Gokal Singh and Akash Kumar and explained to them in vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 01.05.2009. Thus, the matter was put to trial.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in total.
4. PW-1 HC/DO Raj Bans deposed that on 14.09.2007, he was posted as HC at PS Gulabi Bagh and was the DO from 8.00 AM to 4.00 PM. On that day, he received a rukka at around 1.25 PM sent by HC Vinod Kumar. He registered the FIR Ex.PW1/A on the basis of that rukka, bearing his signature at point at point A. He made an endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW1/B, bearing his signature at point A. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 3 of 25
5. PW-2 Ct. Rajpal deposed that on 01.11.2007, he was posted at PS Gulabi Bagh and on that day he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Pawan Kumar and ASI Kishan Kumar. At about 9.00 PM, ASI Kishan Kumar received a call from ASI Ranbir Singh regarding apprehension of two accused persons namely Akash Kumar and Gokul Singh at red light Y point, Kishan Ganj, Bagichi Peeri and he was asked on phone to reached at Y point, Kishan Ganj. He, Ct. Pawan Kumar and ASI Kishan Kumar went to Y point, Kishan Ganj, Bagichi Peeri. At Y Point, Kishan Ganj, Bagichi Peeri ASI Ranbir Singh had apprehended the Gokul Singh and Akash Kumar. Gokul Singh and Akash Kumar were handed over to ASI Kishan Kumar by ASI Ranbir Singh. Accused Gokul Singh and Akash Kumar were correctly identified by witness in the court. Both accused were arrested and both accused persons were taken to hospital for medical examination by him and Ct. Pawan and taken to PS and locked in police lock up PS Sarai Rohilla.
This witness was not cross examined by accused persons despite opportunity being given.
6. PW-3 HC Dharamveer deposed that he was posted at Sadar Bazar Circle as MHCM and on 13.12.2007, he handed over the DD No. 3 dated 14.09.2007 traffic circle Sadar Bazar vide which Ranvir Singh, HC Satish Kumar, Ct. Joginder and ct. Rajbir made departure entry for ZO net Sadar Bazar Circle 05, T point, Kishan Ganj. He brought the original DD No.3, copy of the same is Ex.PW3/A. He also handed over the copy of DD No. 29 dated 14.09.2007 Sadar Bazar Circle vide which ASI Ranbir Singh returned alongwith staff, copy of the DD No.29 is Ex.PW3/B. He FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 4 of 25 also handed over copy of duty roaster vide which ASI Ranbir Singh, HC Satish, Ct. Rajbir, Ct. Joginder were posted at Y point Sadar Bazar circle 05 (NO net) on 14.09.2007, copy of the same is Ex.PW3/C. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
7. PW-4 Ct. Joginder Kumar deposed that on 14.09.2007, he was posted as constable at PS Sadar Bazar, Traffic circle and at about 11.30 AM, he alongwith ASI Ranvir Singh and HC Satish Kumar were present at road no.40, DDA flats, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. One person namely Sushil Kumar was on his motorcycle bearing NO. DL-7SAY-7251 jumped the red light. He correctly identified the accused Sushil in the court. Accused Sushil was issued a challan vide No. 109188 which is Ex.PW4/A and book no. 2184 which is EX.PWB/A, bearing his name at point A and accused was neither having necessary documents i.e. RC and DL nor the accused was having adequate money. The driving license of accused was seized and accused Sushil Kumar was against asked to sign on the challan but he refused to sign on it and started misbehaving with them. Accused Gokul was correctly identified by him in the court. HC Satish Kumar issued him a challan of fine of Rs.600/- and accused paid the same and accused Gokul registered his protest as he was fined excessively. Public persons gathered at the spot as a result of which situation like "Arajakata" occurred and they all started moving from the spot with the impounding motorcycle and accused persons retrained them. At the spot, they formed an intention and as a result of which FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 5 of 25 accused Sushil Kumar caught hold the collar of the ASI Ranbir Singh and also hit him on his private parts, as a result of said scuffle, the two buttons of the uniform of ASI Ranbir Singh were broken and the uniform was also got torn as a result of which, ASI Ranbir Singh cried in pain and tried to get escaped from the grip of accused Sushil Kumar. Accused Akash Kumar picked up the helmet of accused Sushil Kumar and tried to hit on the head of ASI Ranbir Singh but said helmet hit the elbow of ASI Ranbir Singh as a result of said hitting, the elbow of ASI Ranbir Singh got swelled. Accused Gokul gave fist blows on the chest of ASI Ranbir Singh. Meanwhile one person namely Ravi Kumar who was driving the TSR No. DL-1RH-2134 came to the spot. Accused Ravi Kumar correctly identified by witness in the court and said that "in police walon ko jitna peeto utna thik hai" and gave beatings to ASI Ranvir Singh and mob gathered and by taking advantage of the presence of mob, accused Gokul and Akash fled away from the spot. The case property is Ex.P1 (colly).
This witness was cross examined at length. However, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
8. PW-5 SI Ranvir Singh deposed that on 14.09.2007, he was posted at traffic, Sadar Bazar circle as ASI and he alongwith HC Satish and Ct. Joginder were on duty and were present at road no.40 near Gulabi Bagh, DDA flats and were checking vehicles at Nand Lal road, Gulabi Bagh crossing red light. At about 11.30 AM one motorcycle bearing NO. DL7SAY-7251 was coming from side of Azad Market and had jumped the red light of Nand Lal Marg. He gave signals to stop the FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 6 of 25 motorcycle and the rider of the motorcycle had stopped. He was informed about the violation of the law as he jumped the red light. Accused was having a duplicate driving license which was shown by him and on this he had issued challan. During Interrogation, he disclosed his name Sushil Kumar S/o Ram Dayal (correctly identified by witness in the court). After paying the fine, accused Gokul Singh had also joined the accused persons and started shouting and abusing them. Accused Sushil Kumar had held him by his uniform collar and had hit him on his private part by his leg. HC Satish and Ct. Joginder were confined by the public persons on the spot and accused Akash had hit him by the helmet of Sushil Kumar on his head. He had tried to save himself by putting his hand on his head due to which he had sustained injuries on his hand. Accused Gokal had hit him on his chest by fists. During meantime, SHO PS Gulabi Bagh alongwith other police staff reached and tried to control the situation. Accused Sushil and Ravi Kumar were apprehended on the spot. HC Vinod and HC Satish Kumar went to the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW5/B. The said helmet was taken into possession. IO had prepared pullanda of said uniform and sealed the same with the seal of KKY and the same was taken into possession through seizure memo Ex.PW5/C, bearing his signature at point A. Accused Sushil and Ravi were interrogated, they were arrested vide memos Ex.PW5/D and Ex.PW5/E and their personal search were conducted vide memo Ex.PW5/F and PW5/G, all bearing his signature at point A. The TSR was taken into possession through seizure memo Ex.PW5/H, bearing his signature at point A. On 01.11.2007, accused Akash and Gokal were arrested vide memos Ex.PW5/I, Ex.PW5/J and their personal search were conducted FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 7 of 25 vide memos Ex.PW5/K, Ex.PW5/L, all bearing his signature at point A. The photographs of TSR bearing NO. DL-1RH-2134 is Ex.PW5/M (colly).
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
9. PW-6 ASI Satish Kumar deposed that on 14.09.2007, he was posted as HC at traffic Sadar Bazar Circle. He alongwith ASI Ranbir Singh and Ct. Joginder were on duty at Road No.40, near Gulabi Bagh, Delhi Administration Flats and were checking vehicles at Nand Lal Road which were crossing the Gulabi Bagh red light. At about 11.30 PM one motorcycle bearing NO. DL7SY-7251 was coming from Azad Market and was moving towards K.D. Marg and jumped the red light of Nand Lal Marg. ASI Ranbir Singh signaled the driver of the motorcycle to stop. He was informed by ASI Ranvir Singh regarding the violation of law as he jumped the red light. The driver of the motorcycle revealed his name as Sushil (correctly identified by the witness in the court). ASI Ranbir asked motorcycle rider to show the documents of the vehicle but he failed to produce any document except duplicate driving license. Thereafter, accused Sushil Kumar held ASI Ranbir Singh by his uniform collar and hit him on his private parts by his foot. Accused Akash hit ASI Ranvir Singh with the helmet on his head. ASI Ranvir Singh tried to save himself but he sustained injury on his hand. Accused Gokal was hitting ASI Ranvir Singh by fists on his chest. Button of his uniform of ASI Ranbir Singh was broken and his shirt was torn. In the meantime, one TSR bearing No. DL- 1RH-2134 also reached there. The driver of the TSR also joined the FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 8 of 25 accused persons whose name was revealed as Ravi Kumar (correctly identified by witness in the court). TSR driver Ravi Kumar said "Yeh police Waale galat karte hain, inko jitna mara jaaye utna kam hain". Accused Ravi Kumar also parked TSR in the middle of road due to which traffic got obstructed. Meanwhile HC Vinod Kumar and other staff came at the spot. With the help of police staff, they apprehended the accused persons but accused Akash and Gokul managed to escape from the spot.
This witness was cross examined at length. However, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
10. PW-7 Retired ACP Satish Yadav deposed that on 14.09.2007, he was posted as Traffic Inspector, Sadar Bazar circle and at about 11.45 AM, ASI Ranbir Singh, ZO informed him on wireless that at road no.40, Nand Lal Marg red light, some vehicle owners who were prosecuted for traffic violation were quarreling with him and other traffic staff accompanying him. He reached the spot and found SHO, PS Gulabi Bagh alongwith staff were present and many vehicle owners were also there and came to know that ASI Ranbir Singh had challaned motorcycle bearing No. DL-7SAY-7251 and the owner Sushil Kumar (accused correctly identified by the witness in the court), scooter bearing No. DL- 5SM-3879 and owner Akash Kumar (accused correctly identified by the witness in the court), scooter bearing No. DL-5SL-4236 and owner Gokul (Accused correctly identified by the witness) and one TSR bearing No. DL-1RH-2134 and owner Ravi (Accused correctly identified by the witness) were fighting with ASI Ranbir Singh and HC Satish Kumar and Ct. Joginder. Two accused namely Ravi and Sushil were apprehended by FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 9 of 25 the police at the spot, however accused Gokul and Akash fled away from the spot. IO recorded his statement.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
11. PW-8 HC Pawan Singh deposed that on 01.11.2007, he was posted as Ct. with PS Gulabi Bagh. On that day, at about 8.45 PM, he alongwith Ct. Rajpal were present near metro station Pratap Nagar. Ct. Raj Pal received a telephonic call from IO to meet him at red light Y point, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. They reached there and found two persons namely Gokul Singh and Akash Kumar were handed over to them by traffic police officials. ASI Rambir Singh informed IO that they are both the accused persons who had fought with him at the time when he was discharging his duty on 14.09.2007. Thereafter they took both the accused persons namely Gokul Singh and Akash Kumar (both accused correctly identified by the witness). IO recorded his statement.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
12. PW-9 ASI Vinod Kumar deposed that on 14.09.2007, he was posted as HC with PS Gulabi Bagh and he was on patrolling duty in the area of PS Gulabi Bagh and at about 12.00 noon, he received the information on wireless set regarding fight with police officials at Road No. 40 near DDA Flats, Gulabi Bagh. He reached at the spot where SHO FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 10 of 25 with Staff were present. Many public persons were present at the spot and SHO, directed the public persons to leave the spot for the investigation. On the spot, he came to know that some persons had a fight with traffic police officials i.e. ASI Ranbir Singh, HC Satish Kumar and Ct. Joginder. Two accused persons namely Susheel and Ravi (correctly identified by the witness) were already apprehended alongwith TSR. Due to situations, at the spot, he took the injured persons and complainant and accused persons to the PS. The Case property is exhibited P1 (colly).
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
13. PW-10 Retd. SI Krishan Kumar deposed that on 14.09.2007, the present case was marked to him for further investigation. HC Vinod Kumar handed over accused Ravi and Sushil alongwith rukka and copy of FIR in the PS. He correctly identified both accused persons in the court. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Vinod and HC Satish went to spot. He prepared the site plan which is already Ex. PW5/B bearing his signature at point A. He seized the torn uniform vide seizure memo already Ex. PW5/C bearing his signature at point D. He arrested accused Ravi and Sushil vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/D & E, their personal search memo Ex. PW5/F & G, bearing his signatures at point D. He also seized the helmet vide memo Ex. PW4/C bearing his signature at point E. He seized the TSR bearing NO. DL1RH 2134 vide seizure memo already Ex. PW5/H bearing his signature at point G. He arrested accused Gokal FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 11 of 25 Singh and Akash vide memo already Ex. PW5/I and Ex. PW5/J and their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW5/K and Ex. PW5/L bearing his signatures at point C. He also collected the result of MLC of ASI Ranbir and placed the same on record.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel however, his cross examination is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
14. As all witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PE was ordered to be closed vide order dated 03.11.2018. Statement of accused persons namely Ravi Kumar, Sushil Kumar, Gokal and Akash was recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC on 26.11.2018 and accused persons opted not to lead defence evidence accordingly defence evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
15. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
REASONS FOR DECISION
16. Prosecution is alleging the commission of offence under Section 186/332/341/353/34 IPC and the relevant statutory provisions for ready reference are:-
"Section 186, IPC:-
Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 12 of 25 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.
17. In order to bring home a charge for the offence u/s 186 IPC prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(I) Voluntary causing obstruction to any public servant. (II) While such public servant is acting in the discharge of his duties.
18. Section 332 IPC the same is reproduced herein for ready reference:-
"Section 332 IPC :-
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 13 of 25 which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
19. In order to bring home a charge for the offence u/s 332 IPC prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(I) Voluntary causing of hurt to any public servant. (II) While such public servant is acting in the discharge of his duties.
20. Before appreciating the evidence as stated above in brief, it is necessary to state the law/ essential ingredients of Section 341 IPC which are as follows :-
1. whoever voluntarily obstructs any person ;
2. from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to, proceed is said to cause wrongful restraint.
21. Section 353 IPC the same is reproduced herein for ready reference:-
"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 FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 14 of 25 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."
22. In order to bring home a charge for the offence u/s 353 IPC prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(I) Assault or use of criminal force to any public servant.
(ii) While such public servant is acting in the discharge of his duties.
23. In the present case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in total. Ld. Counsel for accused persons contended that the accused persons have been falsely implicated and it was also contended that despite availability of public persons, no independent public persons was joined. It was further argued that as per version of the prosecution and the police officials who have been examined, various public persons were present at the spot and they even tried to pacify the accused persons. It was further argued that in the absence of corroboration of independent public witnessed the testimony of the complainant who is a police official is not trustworthy.
24. On the other hand, Ld. APP for State has argued that the state has successfully proved its case and it was further argued that the FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 15 of 25 testimony of all 10 police witness is blemish free and consistent and thus accused persons deserve to be convicted.
25. The case of the prosecution hangs upon testimony of the complainant namely ASI Ranbir Singh who is also the injured in the present matter. He categorically testified that all the accused persons were challaned and they were asked to pay the fine as they had jumped the red light and when asked to deposit fine they refused to deposit the fine and also refused to show the documents. Accused Sushil refused to put his signatures on his challan and thereafter the accused persons started abusing him and started misbehaving with him. He categorically deposed that the accused persons were shouting and calling out the other passersby and he tried to reason out with them but they refused to pay the attention.
26. He further deposed that all the accused persons were separately challaned however they joined each other and obstructed the traffic on the road as a result of which the traffic got jammed and the accused persons started shouting and abusing him. He further stated that he requested the accused persons not to obstruct him in discharging his public duty but they did not pay attention and came in the middle of the road and blocked the entire traffic and as result of which huge crowd gathered. Due to heavy crowd on the road they could not issue any further challan and they were stopped from issuing any further challans. He further deposed that when he alongwith his fellow colleagues tried to dispense the crowd but they were not allowed to do so and the accused FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 16 of 25 persons were shouting on them stating that they would not be allowed to leave the spot until the media reached on the spot. He further stated that he tried to reason out however accused Sushil caught hold of his uniform collar and hit his private parts and HC Satish and Ct. Joginder were also obstructed. Accused Akash hit him with helmet and when he tried to save himself his hand got injured. This witness further deposed that accused Gokal hit him on his chest by fist blows and as a result of scuffle two buttons of his uniform were broken and the uniform was torn slightly. In the meantime, another TSR driver by the name of Ravi reached at the spot and he also joined the accused persons who had started beating him and abusing him.
27. Thus, this witness clearly stated the incident in detail and also stated that he was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital for his medical examination and thereafter SHO Gulabi Bagh reached at the spot and his complaint is Ex. PW5/A was recorded. He further revealed the details of the investigation in the case and identified his uniform as well as TSR when produced in the court. He further identified all the accused persons in the court.
28. The complainant remained firm on his stand during his cross examination despite elaborate cross examination by defence counsel, no material contradictions could be noted to breach the credibility of the complainant.
FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 17 of 25
29. Apart from his own statement, the complainant has been corroborated by the MLC on record which is Ex. A1 dated 14.09.2007 which is the date of the incident. As per complainant, the time of incident is around 11:30 AM and MLC states the time of arrival of injured Ranbir Singh at around 01:30 PM. The MLC states the nature of injury to be simple with abrasion on the right fore arm, tenderness on chest and tenderness on testes. Thus, the nature of injured mentioned in the MLC also corroborates the testimony of the complainant. There appears to be absolutely no reasons as to why the victim/complainant would want to falsely implicate four absolutely innocent strangers travelling on road.
30. Ld. Defence counsel stated that the testimony of the complainant has not been duly corroborated. However, this is not the case. Complainant has been duly corroborated by the other police officials who were on duty alongwith the complainant. ASI Satish Kumar and Ct. Joginder have consistently deposed on the lines of the testimony given by the complainant.
31. It has further been argued by the Ld. Defence counsel that contradictions could be noted in the testimony of the police officials and it has been stated that the time of the incident has been stated to be 11:35 whereas during the cross examination of one of the witness stated that they reached the police station at 12:10 PM. He argued that all the proceedings could not have been carried out within the time span of 35 minutes. Evidently the police officials are deposing after a time span of 5- FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 18 of 25 7 years and even after a span of 10 years in the present matter. Therefore, minor discrepancy in their testimony is obvious and natural.
32. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that:-
"Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however, honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancies may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so".
33. It is settled law that the witnesses are to be weighed and not counted and conviction can be sustained upon the sole testimony of the complainant without any independent corroboration.
34. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of "Yakub Ismailbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat" ( 2004 CRI. L.J. 4205 Supreme Courts ):-
"The legal position in respect of the testimony FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 19 of 25 of a solitary eye-witness is well-settled in a catena of judgments in as much as this Court has always reminded that in order to pass conviction upon it, such a testimony must be of a nature which inspires the confidence of the Court. While looking into such evidence this Court has always advocated the Rule of Caution and such corroboration from other evidence and even in the absence of corroboration if testimony of such single eye-witness inspires confidence then conviction can be based solely upon it. In the case on hand, the testimony of the solitary eye-witness stands corroborated by other circumstances and evidences and more particularly."
35. Further, in the matter of "Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. V. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 (three Judge Bench) 1973 Cri LJ 1783 : AIR 1973 SC 2622, Para 19" it has been observed that:-
"....Even if the case against the accused hangs on the evidence of a single eye-witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest man, although as a rule of prudence Courts call for corroboration. It is a platitude to say that FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 20 of 25 witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs...."
36. In the matter of " Vadivelu Thevar V. The State of Madras"
(AIR 1957 Supreme Court 614), it has been observed that:-
"The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down that "no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact" has enshrined the well recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted." It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play.
The matter thus must depend upon the circumstance of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court entirely reliable, FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 21 of 25 there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution.
Generally speaking oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely (1) wholly reliable (2) wholly unreliable (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way-it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 22 of 25 indirectly encouraging subordination of witness. Situation may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a dispute fact. The Court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in case of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver, both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the Court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable."
37. Furthermore, it cannot be said that police officials are not reliable witnesses and their testimony cannot be acted upon unless corroborated by independent public witnesses. It is a matter of common knowledge that members of general public are reluctant to join the investigation and testify in a court of law. The pious cause of justice cannot be abandoned due to the general apathy and callousness of the common man.
38. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of "Karamjit Singh v. State" (AIR 2003 SC 1311) that :-
FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 23 of 25 "The testimony of the police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds'.
39. The Apex Court reiterated the above position in precedent titled as Girija Prasad v. State of MP (AIR 2007 SC 3106) has held that:-
"It is well settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a given case, a court of law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of complainant or a police official but it is not the law that the police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force. There is no rule of law FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 24 of 25 which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence".
40. From the unimpeached and blemish free testimony of the complainant and other police witnesses, it is conclusively established on record that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed SI Ranbir Singh and used criminal force against him thereby tearing his uniform when he was on duty as a public servant and thus the prosecution has successfully established its case beyond a shadow of doubt that all the accused persons have committed offence under Section 186/332/341/353/34 IPC. Accordingly, accused persons namely Ravi Kumar, Sushil, Gokal and Akash are convicted for the alleged offences under Section 186/332/341/353/34 IPC.
41. Ordered accordingly.
CHETNA Digitally signed by CHETNA
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2019.01.11 12:03:04 +0530
Announced in the open
Court on 08.01.2019
(Chetna Singh)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Central/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 08.01.2019 FIR No. 162/2007 PS: Gulabi Bagh State Vs Ravi & Ors Page No. 25 of 25