State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) v. Om Prakash & Anr

1. This appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), has been filed by the respondent/ State in Criminal Appeal 80 and 81 of 2014 on the file of Additional Sessions court, Patiala House courts aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.11.2014 by which accused no. 1 (A[1]) and accused no. 2 (A[2])/the respondents herein, have been acquitted by reversing the finding of guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 353 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) by the trial court.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 26.06.2003 at about 3:05 PM at premises bearing No. P-2/W[1], Curzon Road Barrack, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, A[1] and A[2], in furtherance of their common intention and in association with other persons, voluntarily assaulted and used criminal force against PW[1], a public servant, with the intention of deterring him from the discharge of his official duties, and thereby obstructed him in the performance of such duties.

3. On the basis of Exhibit PW1/A complaint of PW[1], given on 26.06.2003, Crime no. 153/2003, Parliament Street, Police Station, i.e., Exhibit PW2/B FIR was registered by PW[2], Head Constable. PW[4], Sub Inspector (SI) was entrusted with the investigation of the case. PW[4] conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report dated 02.08.2003 alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 160, 186, 353, 341, 451 read with Section34 IPC. Ext. PW8/A statutory complaint for prosecution, as contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C., was given by C.B. Lal, Additional Director General, Central Public Works Department.

4. The copies of the prosecution records were furnished to the accused persons, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial court, vide order dated 27.02.2006, framed a charge under Section 353, 186 read with 34 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined and Ext. PW1/A, Ext. PW1/B, Ext. PW2/A, Ext. PW2/B, Ext. PW3/D[1], Ext. PW4/A, Ext. PW4/B, Ext. PW4/C, Ext. PW4/D, Ext. PW4/D[1], Ext. PW4/D[2], Ext. PW4/E, Ext. PW8/A were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They submitted that they have been falsely implicated and they were neither present at Nirman Bhawan nor part of the alleged mob that misbehaved with and assaulted PW[1] on 26.06.2003. It was further submitted that one K.N. Tiwari, AE had lodged a complaint against PW[1] alleging threats and assault, which was forwarded by the Association of Engineers. As the accused persons were associated with the Engineers' body, they claimed that the present case was taken against them in retaliation.

7. No oral or documentary evidence were adduced by the accused persons in support of their case.

8. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2014 held both A[1] and A[2] guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 186, 353 and 34 IPC. Consequently, the trial court vide order on sentence dated 15.07.2014sentenced them both to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC and to a fine of ₹5000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 months, and further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable u/s 186 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the accused persons filed Criminal Appeal. 80 and 81 of

2014. The appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and acquitted both A[1] and A[2]. Aggrieved, the State has preferred the present appeal.

9. It was submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State that the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate court is bad in law and liable to be set aside. It was submitted that the Appellate Court erred in rejecting the prosecution case on the ground that the testimony of PW[1] alone was insufficient. It is contended that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact, and that a conviction can be safely founded upon the testimony of a sole witness, provided such testimony is found to be reliable and trustworthy. It is also contended that the appellate court erred in drawing adverse inference from the fact that PW[5] and PW[6] failed in identifying the accused persons, since both the witnesses were admittedly not present inside the room at the exact time of the occurrence and had reached the spot only after hearing a commotion. It was also submitted that the Appellate Court erred in magnifying minor discrepancies and alleged improvements in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and that trivial inconsistencies, which do not strike at the root of the prosecution case, cannot constitute a valid ground for acquittal.

10. The learned counsel for appearing for the accused persons submitted that the impugned judgment is well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, and does not suffer from any infirmity calling for an interference by this Court. The findings of the appellate court are neither perverse nor contrary to law, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

11. Heard both sides and perused the record.

12. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned judgement calling for an interference by this court.

13. I make a brief reference to the oral and documentary evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of the case. The gist of Ext. PW1/A complaint dated 26.06.2003 is that on the said day, PW[1], Chief Engineer, Married Accommodation Project Zone, CPWD, posted at B-2/W-I First Floor, Curzon Road Barracks, K.G. Marg, New Delhi 110001, was assaulted at about 03.05 PM in his office by a group of around 20 persons who suddenly entered the premises. Three security personnel were overpowered, while about eight persons remained outside in the first-floor verandah. The mob abused him and four persons leading the group physically attacked him by hitting his head, neck, and temple. During the incident, a glass of water on his table was broken, his spectacles were damaged, and the telephone equipment was thrown onto the floor. The assailants thereafter fled. It came to notice that some of the aforesaid persons had gathered in the room of the DG(W), CPWD and at Gate No. 3 of Nirman Bhawan. PW[1] proceeded there with two officers and one security guard and identified A[1], Assistant Engineer, PWD Government of Delhi, as the leader of the mob. A[1] was handed over to the CISF security at Gate No. 3 but he managed to slip away when PW[1] went to the room of the DG(W) on the first floor. Another participant in the mob was A[2], Assistant Engineer, PWD Government of Delhi. PW[1] identified both A[1] and A[2] present in the Court. PW[1] did not undergo any medical examination as there was no visible external or internal injury on his head, neck or temple/cheek.

14. PW[1], in his examination before the trial court, substantially supported the version he set out in Ext. PW1/A. In his cross examination, PW[1] deposed that he could not recollect how many persons were standing outside his office. According to PW[1], about 20 persons had come inside his room. He admitted that he did not call the police when he saw the 20 persons. PW[1] further deposed that he was alone in his room doing his work and no other official was present with him. According to PW[1], the room was bolted from inside and he made a call to the Director General at about 3.40 PM. The mob remained inside his room for about 25 minutes. He admitted that he had not mentioned the bolting of the door in his Ext. PW1/A. He further deposed that he, along with three other persons namely PW[5], PW[6] and one Ram Chander Singh, left for the office of the Director General at about 3.45 PM. The driver was also with them. He admitted that he did not physically catch A[1]. PW[1] denied that he had threatened or beaten one K.N. Tiwari or any other person on that day. In June 2007, he came to know for the first time that some complaint and subsequently a case had been filed against him by K.N. Tiwari.