Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC.

2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 05.07.1998 at about 10.20 pm in front of D-478, Peera Garhi Relief Camp, the accused pesons namely Harphool, Santosh, Gurmeet Singh and Jaggi in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed Ct. Driver Satpal Singh who had gone to the abovesaid address along with Ct. Balwan Singh & ASI Mukhtiyar Singh in a PCR van, upon receiving a message about quarrel. The accused persons assaulted Ct. Satpal so as to deter him in discharge of his public functions and caused hurt to him. They also tore his uniform and accused Santosh had caught hold of his private parts, and thus the accused persons are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 186/353/332/34 IPC.

State v. Harphool Singh etc.       U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC
FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar                                                  2/23

3. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out. Charge sheet was filed against the accused persons in the court. Documents were supplied to the accused and thereafter charge under u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC was framed against them by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 20.09.2002 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

23.On the other hand, it has been submitted by the Ld. APP that there is no discrepancy in the testimony of the injured and the eye witnesses. He has submitted that the MLC has been duly proved by PW-1. He has submitted that refreshing of memory before deposition is allowed under Section 159 Indian Evidence Act ans hence no illegality can be attached with his testimony. He has further submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case and the guilt of the accused persons is duly established for offences under section 186/353/332 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

28.It has been argued by Ld. APP for State that the failure to prove the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C would only vitiate trial in respect of offence punishable U/s 186 IPC, and it would not affect the trial in respect of offence U/s 332 & 353 IPC as no formal complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C is required for taking cognizance for offences punishable under these sections.

29.It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a three judges bench in a case titled "Durgacharan Naik And Ors vs State Of Orissa",1966 AIR 1775, wherein it was held:-