Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
7. It is argued by the Ld. APP for State that the prosecution has been able to establish the case against accused beyond reasonable doubts. The statements of PW2 HC Sunil and other members of his raiding party are consistent with each other and the accused has also admitted his presence at the spot and he has even admitted that he was asked to surrender by the complainant which proves that the accused has committed the alleged acts. Therefore, it is argued that the accused be convicted of alleged offence. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for accused has strenuously urged for acquittal of accused on the ground that the accused admittedly was not carrying any weapon of offence and since, he was in mask the police officials could not have identified him and since, the police officials i.e. PW2 HC Sunil wrongly fired at accused, he has falsely implicated the accused, misusing his position. Lastly, it has been argued that offence U/S 186 IPC is not proved against the accused as the complaint U/S 195 Cr.P.C has not been proved.
"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 AISHWARYA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.09 16:10:42 +0530 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 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 contempt's of the lawful authority of public servants, while section 353 occurs in Ch. XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body..."
21. Based on the above discussion, it is unhesitatingly concluded that there was obstruction and deterrence in the discharge of duties by PW 2 by the voluntary acts of accused and accused even assaulted and used criminal force upon him, thus, the prosecution has successfully proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence Us 353 IPC, the accused is accordingly convicted of the same.
22. Nevertheless, for proving the charge of Section 186 IPC, there has to be fulfillment of the procedural requirement of section 195 Cr.P.C as well. This brings us to the point of determination (d) (i). As per Section 195(1)
23. In view of case laws discussed above, it is clear that the mere placing on record of the complaint U/S 195 Cr.P.C would not suffice and that it should have been proved like any other written document in accordance with Section 67 read with Section 47 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed on that front, which makes the accused entitled to benefit of doubt. In such a scenario, the charge U/S 186 IPC fails and the accused is acquitted of the said offence.