Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.08.2010, traffic Constable Mukesh Kumar was on duty at Noida Mor Flyover, NH- 24 between 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. At about 4.00 pm, a motorcycle bearing No. DL7S-AZ-6037 Bajaj Discover driven by accused Raj Kumar without helmet with a pillion rider sitting on the motorcycle came from the side of Nizamuddin and jumped the red light. Constable Mukesh Kumar tried to get the motorcycle stopped but accused ran over the motorcycle upon him due to which he received injuries on his face, hand and feet. Accused also fell down and received injuries. Accused and the injured Constable Mukesh Kumar were rushed to the hospital. FIR was registered under Section 279/338 IPC. Accused was arrested. He could not produce his driving license. As per MLC result, Constable Mukesh Kumar received grievous injuries on his person. Sections 186/333 IPC were invoked in place of Section 279/338 IPC. Complaint under Section 195 Cr. PC was obtained from ACP and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 186/333 IPC and under Section 3/181 M.V. Act.

2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC, the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 186/333 IPC and under Section 3/181 M.V. Act was framed against the accused by my learned predecessor to which he pleaded not guilty.

3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 13 witnesses. PW-1 is ACP Raj Kumar from traffic police. He had filed the complaint under Section 195 Cr. PC Exbt. PW-1/A. PW-2 is HC Rampal Singh, Duty Officer. He had recorded DD No. 26-A and the FIR.

8. Section 186 IPC provides punishment to one who voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions and Section 333 IPC provides punishment for causing grievous hurt to such a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant. In order to constitute an offence under Section 186 IPC, obstruction must be willful. It is not enough to prove obstruction by accused to public servant but it must also be proved that the intention was encompassed with some sort of hostility towards such public servant. All the three witnesses of occurrence including PW-9 Constable Mukesh Kumar stated that accused was given signal to stop the bike but he hit the bike to Constable Mukesh Kumar due to which he received injuries. They have denied that motorcycle had slipped on the road due to which accused and Constable Mukesh received injuries. The witnesses have stated that accused was driving the motorcycle at a fast speed and had jumped the red light. In cross examination, PW-4 HC Iqbal Hussain admits having stated before the police that accused could not stop the motorcycle as he was driving it at a fast speed and due to this reason, motorcycle hit with Constable Mukesh. If this version given by PW-4 is accepted, there is no mens-rea on the part of the accused to cause obstruction and injuries to Constable Mukesh in the discharge of his public duty. The obstruction in such circumstances cannot be regarded as willful. PW-9 Constable Mukesh Kumar in cross examination states that earlier he was standing on the roadside but after the accused jumped the red light, he came into middle to stop him. The possibility that being at a fast speed, accused could not control his motorcycle and the same hit against Constable Mukesh Kumar when he reached in the middle of the road, cannot be ruled out. Merely because the motorcycle of the accused hit against traffic Constable Mukesh who gave him signal to stop, it cannot be inferred that obstruction caused to Constable Mukesh was willful on the part of the accused. It can also not be inferred that accused had the intention to prevent or deter Constable Mukesh from discharging his duty. Hence, I am of the opinion that charges under Section 186 and 333 IPC are not proved against the accused. No evidence has been led to prove that accused was asked to produce his driving license or that he failed to produce the same and therefore offence under Section 3/181 M.V. Act is also not proved.

9. Every person driving a vehicle on the road is under a duty to drive in such a manner so as not to cause imperil to the safety and security of other users of the road. It has come in evidence that accused was driving the motorcycle at a fast speed and jumped the red light and could not stop the same due to which the motorcycle hit against Constable Mukesh causing him injuries. Accused failed to prove his defence that his motorcycle slipped on the road and hit Constable Mukesh Kumar causing him injuries. Thus, it is proved that accused was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. PW-6 Dr. Wasim proved that right incisor teeth of Constable Mukesh was half broken and missing and two central incisors were missing and as per his opinion, the injuries were grievous in nature. Although accused has not been specifically charged for the offence under Section 279/338 IPC, but they being minor than the offence under Section 333 IPC, the accused can be convicted for the commission of offence under Section 279/338 IPC. I therefore hold the accused guilty and convict him under Section 279/338 IPC.