Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ipc.186 in State ...........Prosecution vs . on 30 September, 2021Matching Fragments
14. 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 PW1 Pervez Noor and PW2 ASI Yadgiri are consistent with each other and the CCTV footage proves that the accused committed the alleged acts. Therefore, it is prayed that the accused be convicted of alleged offence.
15. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for accused has strenuously urged for acquittal of accused on various grounds. She has argued that the conversation is not audible in the CCTV footage and similarly the words 'Fuck you' and 'Bloody bastards'. Even otherwise, mere utterance of these words does not amount to assault or criminal force as is embodied u/S 353 IPC. Furthermore, there was no obstruction in duties of the complainant as the accused did not prevent them from holding him and also did not use any force as such. Lastly, by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, bench State Vs. Gaurav Sahni CNR no. DLSW020073092016 Page no.6/19 BHARTI GARG Digitally signed by BHARTI GARG Date: 2021.09.30 14:59:28 +05'30' Aurangabad, in Kundan s/o Khanderao Dhande Vs. Vasudeo s/o Nivrut Fegde and Anr. Criminal application no. 4527/2016 dated 25.10.2016, it is submitted that cognizance with respect to offence u/S 186 IPC is not tenable in the absence of proper complaint u/S 195 Cr.P.C, warranting the acquittal of accused qua this offence as well.
18. The import of both these 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 State Vs. Gaurav Sahni CNR no. DLSW020073092016 Page no.7/19 BHARTI GARG Digitally signed by BHARTI GARG Date: 2021.09.30 14:59:38 +05'30' 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 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."
32. Nevertheless, for proving the charge of Section 186 IPC, there has to be fulfilment 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)(a)(i), the cognizance for offence under Section 186 IPC could be taken only upon the written complaint of public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, the complaint u/S 195 Cr.P.C Ex. PW5/A is on record. The same is signed by 'Commandant, For Dy. Inspector General/CASO, CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi' but whose name is not mentioned. The witness who came to prove the complaint is PW5 Arun Singh, Senior Commandant/CISF, IGI Airport, Delhi. He stated on oath that he was deposing in the capacity of being the incumbent commandant and that the complaint was signed by Mr. Narender Dev Anand who was now posted as AIG. He stated the same to be true in his official capacity only. In his crossexamination, he stated that on the date of incident, he was posted at Guwahati Airport and gained knowledge about the case only from the record kept in department.
38. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge of Section 186 IPC due to procedural lacunae of not proving the complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. The charge of Section 353 IPC also fails owing to absence of any inculpatory act on the part of accused amounting to assault or criminal force, which is the prerequisite to convict a person under that provision. The basic ingredients of the offences have not been proved by prosecution so as to attract the offence of Section 186 and 353 IPC in the instant case. The inescapable conclusion is that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.