DELHI HIGH COURT OVERTURNS CONVICTIONS, CITING FLAWS IN PROSECUTION AND LOWER COURT RULINGS
A Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in CRL.REV.P. 1069/2024 & CRL.M.A. 25608/2024 passed a Judgment dated 25-02-2025 in the matter Virender Kumar and Ors.(Petitioners) vs. State NCT of Delhi (Respondent) and held that clear errors and inconsistencies flaw the Judgments of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The Prosecution’s case is cast into doubt due to several factors, including the absence of proof that the Complainant was performing official duties at the time of the incident, the failure to seize or issue a challan for the tempos, the lack of testimony from independent witnesses or co-injured individuals, and the unexplained disregard of the defense witnesses’ statements by the Trial Court.
FACTS:
On 04.08.2004, Constable Mahesh Kumar, posted in the Civil Lines Circle of the Traffic Unit, performed official duty at Pul Dafrin alongside Head Constable Gajender Kumar. Around 6:00 PM, they noticed two tempos (DL1LE5059 and DL1LE7119) parked improperly, obstructing traffic. When they directed the individuals present to remove the vehicles, the alleged owners refused to comply. The officers called a crane to tow the vehicles. As the crane helper Sanjay attempted to hook one of the tempos, three men, later identified as Virender Kumar Shukla, Devender Kumar Shukla, and Jitender Kumar (Accused), allegedly arrived at the scene, grabbed Constable Mahesh Kumar by the collar, physically assaulted him, tore his uniform, and threatened him. They also allegedly attacked the crane helper, Sanjay.
Following the incident, the Police registered FIR No. 373/2004 at Kashmere Gate Police Station under Sections 186, 353, 332, 506, and 34 of the IPC. After completing the investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet, and the Court framed charges against the Accused. During the Trial, the Prosecution presented ten witnesses, while the defense examined four witnesses.
On 17.11.2022, the Metropolitan Magistrate-07, Tis Hazari Courts, convicted the Accused under Sections 186/34, 332/34, 353/34, and 506/34 IPC. On 31.01.2023, the Court sentenced them to three months’ imprisonment under Section 186 IPC and two years’ imprisonment under Sections 332 and 506 IPC. The Court directed the sentences to run concurrently and ordered the Accused to pay ₹2,000/- each as compensation and ₹11,527/- towards Prosecution expenses.
The Accused appealed the conviction before the Additional Sessions Judge-05, Tis Hazari Courts. On 21.08.2024, the Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision and dismissed the Appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment, the Accused filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the Delhi High Court, challenging their conviction. They argued that the Prosecution’s case was fabricated and lacked credible evidence. They contended that the Prosecution failed to prove that the Complainant was on duty at the time of the incident, as no official records or duty rosters were presented. They also pointed out that the Police neither seized the vehicles nor issued challans, casting doubt on the allegations. Additionally, they argued that the Prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a crowded public area. The Accused further highlighted inconsistencies in the medical reports, noting that no fresh external injuries were recorded for the alleged victims. The defense witnesses testified that the tempos were at a different location at the time of the incident, but the trial Court disregarded their statements without explanation.
TRIAL COURT:
The Trial Court held that the Prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused obstructed and assaulted a public servant in the discharge of his official duties. It relied on the testimonies of Police Officers, finding them consistent and credible, and ruled that the absence of independent witnesses did not weaken the case. The Court rejected the defense’s argument that the Accused were not present at the scene, disregarding the testimonies of defense witnesses. Concluding that the Accused voluntarily caused hurt and criminally intimidated the Complainant, the Court convicted them under Sections 186, 353, 332, and 506 IPC and sentenced them accordingly.
APPELLANT COURT:
The Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s conviction, finding that the Prosecution had sufficiently established that the Accused obstructed and assaulted a public servant in the discharge of his official duties. It agreed with the Trial Court’s reliance on the testimonies of the Complainant and other Police Officers, holding that their statements were consistent and credible. The Court also noted that the absence of independent witnesses did not weaken the case, as public officials’ testimonies could be relied upon. It found no merit in the defense’s argument that the tempos were at another location, stating that the Trial Court had correctly rejected the defense witnesses’ statements.
The Appellate Court also dismissed the contention that the Prosecution failed to prove the Complainant was on duty at the time of the incident. It held that the overall evidence, including the Complainant’s version and medical reports, sufficiently supported the allegations. The Court further noted that the injuries sustained by the Complainant corroborated his claims of being assaulted by the Accused. Finding no procedural irregularity or misinterpretation of evidence, the Appellate Court concluded that the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court were justified and dismissed the appeal.
ISSUE:
The primary issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the Prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the lack of evidence establishing that the Complainant was discharging his official duty at the time of the incident.
DELHI HIGH COURT:
The Delhi High Court carefully examined the evidence and found significant errors in the Judgments of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. It observed that a fundamental element of the offences under Sections 186, 353, and 332 IPC—proof that the Complainant was discharging his official duty at the time of the incident—was never established. The Court noted that the Prosecution failed to produce any documentary evidence, such as a duty roster or duty register, to confirm that the Complainant was on duty. Furthermore, the Court found it problematic that the relevant duty records were reportedly destroyed due to rain, leaving no verifiable proof of the Complainant’s official status at the time of the alleged incident.
The High Court also questioned the credibility of the Prosecution’s case due to the failure to seize or issue challans for the tempos, despite the entire incident allegedly arising from a traffic violation. It noted that if the tempos were truly obstructing traffic, the authorities would have taken appropriate action, but no such steps were taken. Additionally, the Court found the Prosecution’s failure to examine any independent witnesses highly suspicious, especially considering that the incident took place in a public area with heavy traffic. The Court emphasized that even Sanjay, the crane helper and an alleged victim of assault, was not examined as a witness, further weakening the Prosecution’s case.
The Court also criticized the lower Courts for completely disregarding the testimonies of the defense witnesses without proper justification. It noted that the defense witnesses provided an alternative version of events, claiming that the tempos were elsewhere at the time of the incident, and their statements should have been given due consideration.
CONCLUSION:
The Court found that the Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and held that the conviction was based on presumptions rather than concrete evidence. Consequently, the Delhi High Court set aside the Judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, acquitted the Accused of all charges, and ordered their release.
Sakshi Raghuvanshi
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer
Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled; “LAWS FOR WOMEN IN INDIA”. Please find the Link below-
Leave a Reply