Delhi District Court
State vs Suraj on 28 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Suraj
FIR No : 125/2019
U/s : 186/332/5/353 IPC
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020127472021
2. Date of commission of offence : 27.07.2019
3. Date of institution of the case : 24.02.2021
4. Name of the complainant : Ct. Sanjay
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Suraj
address S/o Jai Prakash
R/o H. no.16/3B,
Kakrola Village, J. P.
Kalan, New Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 186/332/353 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 28.03.2026
Argued by:- Mr. Pankaj Gulia, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. S. S. Sehrawat, Ld. LAC for accused.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 1 of 20
Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.03.28
16:51:00
+0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 27.07.2019 at around 03:00 pm at RTRM Hospital, Jafarpur Kalan Delhi, the accused voluntarily obstructed the police official namely Ct.
Sanjay posted at RTRM Hospital from discharging his official duties by tearing his uniform and by slapping him and thereby committing the offences punishable under Sections 186/353/332 of IPC, for which FIR no.125/2019 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, charge under Sections 186/353/332 of IPC was framed against the accused on 19.04.2022. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 2 of 20 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.03.28 16:51:06 +0530 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Ct. Sanjay Complainant PW-2 Suresh Kumar Eye-witness PW-3 HC Ramesh Kumar Alongwith Investigating Officer PW-4 Harkesh Eye-witness PW-5 SI Banwari Lal Investigating Officer DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant Ex.PW1/B Site plan Ex.PW1/C Arrest memo Ex.PW1/D Personal search memo Ex.PW1/E Seizure memo Ex.P1 Police uniform (shirt) without name plate Ex.PW3/A Disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW5/A Tehrir ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.125/2019 dated 27.07.2019 alongwith certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.A2 DD no.34B dated 27.07.2019 Ex.A3 DD no.31A dated 27.07.2019 Ex.A4 MLC of complainant Ex.A5 MLC of accused Ex.A6 Sanction u/S 195 Cr. P. C.
4. Prosecution examined the following witnesses and the same are as follows:
PW1 Ct. Sanjay deposed that on 27.07.2019, he was posted at RTRM hospital from 08:00am to 08:00pm in Emergency Ward as Duty Constable and on that day at about 02:00 pm, a lady came in the room of Duty Constable and stated her name as Monika and Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 3 of 20 Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.03.28 16:51:13 +0530 she stated that a quarrel took place between her husband and his brothers. He further stated that he assisted her by getting emergency slip and informed the fact to the doctors of the hospital in emergency and after examination, doctor directed the patient to get his first aid treatment on ground floor. He further stated that the patient instead of getting his first aid, he came out from the dressing room abusing to the doctors and nurses. He further stated that the nursing staff requested him to make the patient to understand the situation and thereafter, he tried to understand the patient but he started abusing him and he also took the help of his wife to make him understand. He further stated that while he was in conversation with the wife of the patient at the same time, the patient hit him on his cheek with his fist. He further stated that while he was defending himself, the patient caught hold his collar and he tried to get rid of the clutches of the patient but could not succeed. Thereafter, he called hospital staff and the hospital staff came and rescued him from patient Suraj. He further stated that he called the duty officer of the PS J. P. Kalan and after some time, Sl Banwari Lal and Ct. Ramesh came to the said spot. He handed over accused Suraj to SI Banwari Lal. He further stated that Suraj was taken to PS and SI Banwari Lal recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. He further stated that during proceedings, police taken his uniform (shirt) and after taking Suraj to PS, police came with Suraj to RTRM hospital and got conducted his medical treatment. He further stated that he did not remember how many documents he had signed and he could not identify the patient Suraj. As PW1 did not support the case of prosecution on material facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he stated that accused Suraj has quarreled with him. He denied the suggestion that site plan Page 4 of 20 Digitally FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2026.03.28 16:51:18 +0530 Ex.PW1/B bear his signature. He further stated that arrest memo Ex.PW1/C, personal search memo Ex.PW1/D and seizure memo Ex.PW1/E bear his signature. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately not identifying the accused Suraj as he had been won over by the accused. The witness correctly identified his shirt as Ex.P1.
5. PW2 Suresh Kumar deposed that he did not remember the exact date and month but it was in the year 2019, he was posted as nursing orderly at RTRM Hospital and was on duty at Casualty Ward, RTRM Hospital. He further stated that in afternoon, he did not remember the exact time, one patient came in the casualty ward in an inebriated condition and he had injuries on his head and he did dressing of his wounds. Thereafter, the said patient started creating ruckus for no reason and also opened his dressing. He further stated that at that time, one duty constable was there whose name was Sanjay and Ct. Sanjay tried to pacify the said patient but the said patient caught hold of his collar. He further stated that the accused was also abusing the other staff members and thereafter, the other staff officials got Ct. Sanjay rid of the said patient. He further stated that he could not identify or tell the name of the said patient/ accused due to lapse of time. As PW2 did not support the case of prosecution on material facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he stated that he did not remember if the accused had hit Ct. Sanjay on his cheeks. He further stated that he did not remember if the name of accused was Suraj and when the witness was confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW2/P1 to which he stated that he did not give any such statement.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 5 of 20 Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.03.28 16:51:24 +0530
6. PW3 HC Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 27.07.20219, he was on emergency duty with SI Banwari Lal and upon receiving DD no.34B, SI Banwari Lal along with him went to RTRM Hospital where they met Ct. Sanjay who was on duty and he produced one person namely Suraj S/o Sh. Jai Prakash who was stated to be in intoxicated condition and had quarreled with Ct. Sanjay and the hospital staff and had also had physical altercation with the said persons. Thereafter, the IO prepared a tehrir upon the statement of Ct. Sanjay and got the FIR registered through him. He further stated that IO arrested the accused, personally searched him, sezied the dress shirt of Ct. Sanjay and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/A. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the Court and case property i.e. the uniform/shirt without name plate Ex.P1. In the cross-examination, he stated that when they reached at the spot, Ct. Sanjay was wearing the aforesaid shirt. He further stated that no visible injuries were there on the person of Sanjay when they reached there and at that time, name plate of Ct. Sanjay was there on the uniform and the incident in question did not occur in his presence.
7. PW4 Harkesh deposed that on 27.07.2019, he was present at emergency ward at RTRM Hospital, when at about 02:35pm, one person whose name was disclosed to be Suraj S/o Sh. Jai Prakash came at emergency ward in an intoxicated condition. He further stated that at that time, CMO was Dr. Mahender Kumar Meena did the dressing of the said Suraj who had some head injuries. Thereafter, he took off the dressing done by doctor and started misbehaving with the doctor and thereafter, they informed the Constable present on duty at that time of the hospital. He further stated that he went back to his duty and he could not identify Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 6 of 20 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: AHLAWAT 2026.03.28 16:51:30 +0530 accused Suraj. As PW4 did not support the case of prosecution on material facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he denied the suggestion that accused Suraj also slapped Ct. Sanjay and tear the uniform shirt worn by Ct. Sanjay at that time and the present FIR registered upon the statement of Ct. Sanjay. He further denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the accused present in the Court as he had been won over by the accused. In the cross-examination, he stated that accused did not hit anyone in his presence and the accused was only verbally abusing the hospital staff. He further stated that accused did not quarrel with the Constable in his presence.
8. PW5 SI Banwari Lal deposed that on 27.07.2019, he received DD no.34B Ex.A2 and thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Ramesh reached at RTRM hospital where they met with Ct. Sanjay. He further stated that Ct. Sanjay handed over to him custody of accused Suraj who was in drunken condition and thereafter, he recorded statement of Ct. Sanjay, on the basis of which he prepared tehrir Ex.PW5/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Sanjay. He further stated that he also prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Sanjay, arrested the accused, conducted his personal search and seized the torn dress of Ct. Sanjay and prepared a pullanda sealed with the seal of BL and seized the same. He further stated that he also recorded disclosure statement of accused and thereafter, he left the spot and reached at PS. The witness correctly identified accused present in the Court. He further stated that he also obtained MLC result of Ct. Sanjay and accused Suraj and he also obtained sanction u/S 195 Cr. P.C. Ex.A6. He further stated that during investigation, he also obtained duty roster of PS staff marked as Mark X (colly) and Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 7 of 20 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.03.28 16:51:37 +0530 recorded statement of witnesses u/S 161 Cr. P. C. He further stated that after completion of charge-sheet, he submitted the charge- sheet before the concerned Court. The witness correctly identified the case property i.e. torn dress of Ct. Sanjay.
9. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined, hence, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
10. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded on 03.09.2024 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein he has stated that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further stated that on one day, he had gone to RTRM Hospital for medical check-up. After one of the doctors gave him some medicine due to which he started experiencing being intoxicated with some sort of drug due to which he asked the said doctor as to what she had injected him with to which she asked for one police official who intervened and said police officials without hearing him started beating him. Accused further stated that he also retaliated by slapping the said police official. He further stated that he did not want to lead defence evidence.Digitally signed by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 8 of 20 Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.03.28 16:51:41 +0530 FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
12. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
13. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
14. Before embarking upon the appreciation of evidences, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of IPC for which the accused has faced trial:-
"186. 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 Digitally signed by Page 9 of 20 ABHINAV FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2026.03.28 16:51:48 +0530 three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
"332. Voluntarily causing hurt to a public person while discharging his official duty.- It reads as under: "Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public ser ant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both".
15. The import of the above sections is to punish persons who create obstruction in the discharge of duties of public servants. While Section 186 IPC envisages merely voluntary obstruction, section 353 IPC lays down an additional condition that such obstruction must be caused by assaulting or using criminal force against the public servant. In fact, the distinction between these two provisions has been clearly borne out in Durgacharan Naik & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1966 SC 1775 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following words:-
"5. It is true that most of the allegations in this case upon which the charge under Section 353, Indian Penal Code is based are the same as those constituting the charge under Section. 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 FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 10 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.03.28 16:51:53 +0530 of his public functions but under Section 353, Indian Penal Code the ingredient of assault or 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 Section 353 occurs in Ch. XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body."
16. In the instant case, the Court is posed with following questions for determination to adjudge the veracity of prosecution case:-
(a)whether the complainant namely PW1 Ct. Sanjay was a public servant at the time of alleged commission of offences in question?
(b) whether the said person was acting in discharge of his public functions assigned to him?
(c) whether any obstruction or deterrence was caused to the said person in the discharge of his public functions by the act of accused?
(c.i) for the purpose of Section 186 IPC, whether the complaint was filed before this Court u/S 195 Cr.P.C? (c.ii) for the purpose of Section 353 IPC, whether the accused had assaulted or used any criminal force to the said person during the execution of his duties?
17. It is a paramount tenet of criminal law that every accused is presumed to be innocent and cannot be convicted unless the prosecution is able to discharge the initial onus rested upon it beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, the prosecution is under a bounden duty to prove all these points on the aforesaid standard to drive home the guilt of accused.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 11 of 20 Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.03.28 16:51:58 +0530 APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE & FINDINGS
18. The allegations as per the case of prosecution against the accused relates to the commission of offence punishable under Sections 186/332/353 IPC.
As regards the first point, whether the complainant was a public servant at the time of alleged commission of the offence, apart from the complaint of complainant Ct. Sanjay, the duty roster of PS Staff was obtained by IO PW5 SI Banwari Lal which is Mark X (colly). As per the said duty roster, Ct. Sanjay, complainant /PW1 was the in the reserve of the police station being posted at RTRM Hospital for 27.07.2019 whereas the present incident is also of the same date. Thereby it is clear that complainant was serving as CMO on the date of alleged incident.
Further, accused person has not disputed the fact that complainant is not a public servant who was serving as a duty constable at RTRM Hospital on the date of incident. Thereby it is clear that complainant was the public servant as he was drawing remuneration/ pay from the government for the performance of his public duty at the hospital run by the Government of NCT of Delhi.
19. The second issue is whether the complaint as filed by complainant PW1 was filed before this Court under Section 195 Cr. P. C. At the outset, the relevant portion of Section 195 of Cr. P.C. is reproduced herein-under for reference:
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance-- Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 12 of 20 Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.03.28 16:52:03 +0530
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Penal Code, 1860, (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;"
20. Now, it is a general condition to initiate prosecution u/s 186 IPC to see that the complaint is filed under Section 195 Cr. P. C. by the concerned public servant or his supervisor officer to whom he is subordinate. It is also not possible to bypass the requirement of Section 195 Cr. P. C. At this stage it is worthwhile to highlight the recent case of Santokh Singh Chawla v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4773, where in Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that,
33. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarized to the effect that there must be a complaint by the public servant whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of Section 195 Cr. P.C. are mandatory. Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. The Court cannot assume the cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction."
21. Also, as held in case of Gurucharan Singh Arora v. The State, (2002) 96 DLT 181, relevant observations of which read as under:
"5. ...In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to quote relevant portion of complaint. It reads:
--
"I Sh. G.L. Mehta, Inspector, SHO, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi in pursuance of Section'195 Cr. P.C. hereby give consent to prosecution (1) Gurcharan Singh Arora S/o Jagaj Nath Arora R/o G-29, Bali Nagar, Delhi, FIR No. 557/93, under Section186/332/353/506/34 IPC and 185 & 39/192 M.V. Act, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi & (2) Gaurav Arora S/o Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 13 of 20 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.03.28 16:52:08 +0530 gurcharan Singh Arora r/o G-29, Gali Nagar, Delhi under Section 186/332/353/506/34 IPC vide case FIR No. 557/93, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi."
6. Section 2(d) of Cr. P.C. defines the complaint to mean any allegation made orally or in writing to a magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. It is true that no particular form is prescribed in which the complaint should be made and the substance of the complaint that is to be read. It is not necessary that it should categorise elements of the offence to be charged.
It is enough that the facts alleged should constitute an offence for which the accused is charged. It does not matter even if the complainant quotes wrong Sections. The complaint is meant to put the machinery of law in motion. Whether allegations were made with a view to take action against the accused would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
7. In this case, there was nothing in the complaint quoted above to indicate that the complaint was made to the Magistrate for taking action under Section 186 IPC. Mere consent of the SHO for prosecution of the accused cannot be construed as the complaint. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate that the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. Therefore, the charge under Section 186 IPC against the petitioner is not sustainable. It is needless to observe that in all such cases, the complaint should be filed by the concerned public servant with a prayer to take action against the accused and whenever such complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. is filed along with charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr. P.C., the Courts while taking cognizance, should also take note of such complaint, to avoid any technical objection at a later stage..."
22. In the instant case, complaint under Section 195 Cr. P. C. was made by Ashok Tyagi, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub- Division/ Chhawala, New Delhi Ex.A6. The said document has not been disputed by the accused persons. Cognizance in the Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 14 of 20 ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2026.03.28 16:52:13 +0530 present case was taken when the charge-sheet along with complaint under Section 195 Cr. P. C. moved by the public servant before the Court. Therefore, there is a compliance of provision of Section 195 Cr. P.C. as the complaint containing allegations against the accused persons along with relevant material was brought on record before the Court at the time of filing the charge- sheet.
23. Proceeding to the third issue as to whether complainant was acting in discharge of his public function assigned to him at the time of incident. Before appreciating the testimony of relevant PWs, it is appropriate to see as to how the criminal law was set into motion. As per IO PW5 SI Banwari Lal who stated that he upon receiving the DD no. 34B Ex. A2, went to the spot of the incident. Perusal of the DD no.34B dated 27.07. 2019 Ex. A2 reveals that information was received from RTRM Hospital through Ct. Sanjay (examined as PW1) regarding a person fighting along with his wife and abusing whereafter IO went to the spot. IO PW5 SI Banwari Lal, after reaching the spot, commenced the investigation and during the course of investigation, he obtained the duty roster of the police station staff marked as Mark X.
24. Perusal of the said duty roster exhibited as Mark X revealed that it is a duty roster of the PS J.P Kalan for date 27.07.2019. The name of the complainant victim Ct. Sanjay 1750 is mentioned in the said duty roster as PS Reserve deputed at RTRM Hospital. This said duty roster was exhibited during the course of the testimony of IO PW5. Ct. Sanjay/victim, testified as PW1 who stated that on the date of incident, he was posted at RTRM hospital from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. in the emergency ward as duty constable and at about 2 p.m. Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 15 of 20 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.03.28 16:52:18 +0530 a lady came in the room of duty constable, who stated her name as Monica and stated that a quarrel had taken place between her brothers and husband. There was no question asked challenging the presence of PW1 at his duty at RTRM Hospital on the date of incident by the counsel for accused The said duty roster mentioning the duty of PW1 remains undisputed as no challenge was posed by the counsel for accused person during the exhibition of the said document. Thus, it stands established that complainant/PW1 was acting in discharge of his public function assigned to him at the time of incident.
25. Onto the fourth issue of whether the conduct of accused person was such meaning to lead obstruction in the duty of concerned public servant i.e. PW1 Ct. Sanjay and that accused person used criminal force and voluntarily caused harm to deter him from the discharge of his official duties.
26. To prove that accused person obstructed the on-duty constable thereby obstructing him in discharge of his public function, prosecution got examined complainant PW1 Ct. Sanjay, PW2 Suresh Kumar, the nursing orderly and PW4 Harskesh, the other Nursing orderly, while the remaining witnesses were not the witness of the incident but part of the subsequent investigation.
27. Complainant PW1 stated that on the date of incident i.e. 27.07.2019, he was posted at RTRM hospital in Emergency Ward as Duty Constable and at about 02:00 pm, a lady came at the room of Duty Constable stating her name as Monika and she stated that quarrel has taken place between her husband and his brothers. PW1 stated that he assisted her in getting emergency slip and informed the said fact to the doctors and after examination, doctor Digitally signed FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 16 of 20 by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.03.28 16:52:23 +0530 directed the patient to get his first aid treatment on ground floor but the patient instead of getting first aid, came out from the dressing room and started abusing the doctors and nurses. PW1 further stated that one of the nursing staff requested him to make the patient understand and when he tried to do so, the patient started abusing him and while he was assisting the wife of accused, the patient all of a sudden hit a fist on his cheek and while he was defending himself, the patient caught hold of his collar whereupon he called the hospital staff. PW1 stated the name of patient as Suraj and stated that thereafter he informed PS J. P. Kalan and after some time, Sl Banwari Lal came to the spot and took said Suraj to PS.
28. The nursing staff who were present at the spot were examined by the prosecution as PW2 and PW4 respectively. PW2 stated that on the date of incident although he did not remember the exact date, he was posted as nursing orderly at RTRM Hospital whereafter one patient in the casualty ward came in inebriated condition having some injuries on his head and he was doing dressing of his wounds whereupon the said patient started creating ruckus for no reason and also opened his dressing. PW2 further stated that duty constable Sanjay tried to pacify the said patient but the said patient caught hold his collar and started abusing. PW2 further stated that with the help of other staff members they intervened and got Ct. Sanjay rid of the said patient.
29. Similarly, PW4 the other nursing staff reiterated the fact that on 27.07.2019 at about 02:30 pm, one person who had disclosed his name as Suraj came in emergency ward in inebriated condition and while CMO Dr. Mahender Kumar Meena did the dressing of the patient who had some head injuries, the said patient took off the Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 17 of 20 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.03.28 16:52:30 +0530 dressing done by doctor and started misbehaving with the doctor. PW4 further stated that he informed the Constable present on duty and thereafter he went back to his duty.
30. The most important point to be highlighted upon evaluation of testimony of complainant, PW1 Ct. Sanjay and other nursing orderly examined as PW2 and PW4 that they all these PWs failed to identify accused to be the said patient who had misbehaved and caught hold of duty Ct. Sanjay. None of these witnesses identified the accused to be said patient who had came in inebriated condition. Also while one of the nursing orderly, PW2 stated that he had done dressing on the wounds of patient Suraj while other nursing orderly PW4 stated CMO Dr. Mahender Kumar did the dressing of the patient with head injuries. Even the said anomaly is not explained in the prosecution evidence. Apart from these abovesaid prosecution witnesses, no other witnesses were examined who had seen the alleged incident.
31. Apparently IO PW5 came at the spot after receiving the information made by PW1 Ct. Sanjay whereafter he recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. However, non-identification of accused by the complainant himself strikes at the root of the prosecution case as he failed to identify the accused to be patient present at the hospital at the time of incident. Even otherwise as stated by PW1 that wife of accused and her brothers were also present when the alleged incident happened but neither they were joined in the investigation nor examined by the prosecution. In the absence of such crucial identification, link to connect the accused with the incident is unproven. Although there is MLC of accused Ex.A5, however, it does not establish the fact that any such incident as Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 18 of 20 ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2026.03.28 16:52:35 +0530 alleged by PW1 had occurred at the hospital. There is no cogent material on record to substantiate the prosecution version that the alleged incident of obstructing the public duty of Ct. Sanjay was committed at the behest of accused.
32. Also, no CCTV footages or photographs of the incident were filed on record by the prosecution. Since the place of incident was of RTRM hospital and CCTVs must have been installed in the said vicinity. No sincere or meaningful efforts were undertaken by the investigating agency to procure the CCTV footage from the hospital, despite the apparent availability of such electronic evidence. Moreover, there are no independent witnesses of the incident, despite the alleged incident occurring at a public place like hospital.
33. Thereby, in the absence of any cogent and complete evidence identifying the accused as the assailant either in the form of independent witnesses or direct evidence showcasing the alleged act on the part of the accused through any CCTV footage, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused person.
CONCLUSION
34. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge of Section 186/332/353 IPC. The basic ingredients of the offences have not been proved by prosecution. The inescapable conclusion is that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 19 of 20 Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.03.28 16:52:41 +0530
35. Resultantly, since the prosecution has failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused, the accused Suraj S/o Sh. Jai Prakash, is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 186/332/353 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Announced in the open Court Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
on 28.03.2026 in the presence Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.03.28
16:52:46
of the accused. +0530
(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/28.03.2026
Note: - This judgment contains 20 pages and each page has been signed by me. Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2026.03.28 16:52:52 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/28.03.2026 FIR No. 125/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Suraj Page 20 of 20