[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Om Prakash & Anr on 10 March, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 25.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 10.03.2026
+ CRL.A. 742/2016
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for
State
Versus
OM PRAKASH & ANR
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Tamta, Sr. Advocate
alongwith Ms. Manavi Joshi, Ms.
Nisha Narayanan and Ms. Sonika
Rathore, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
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 (A1) and
accused no. 2 (A2)/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/W1, Curzon Road Barrack,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg, A1 and A2, in furtherance of their
common intention and in association with other persons,
voluntarily assaulted and used criminal force against PW1, 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 PW1,
given on 26.06.2003, Crime no. 153/2003, Parliament Street,
Police Station, i.e., Exhibit PW2/B FIR was registered by PW2,
Head Constable. PW4, Sub Inspector (SI) was entrusted with the
investigation of the case. PW4 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/D1, Ext. PW4/A, Ext. PW4/B, Ext. PW4/C,
Ext. PW4/D, Ext. PW4/D1, Ext. PW4/D2, 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 PW1 on 26.06.2003. It was further
submitted that one K.N. Tiwari, AE had lodged a complaint
against PW1 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 A1 and
A2 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 A1 and A2. 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 PW1
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 PW5 and PW6 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, PW1, 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. PW1
proceeded there with two officers and one security guard and
identified A1, Assistant Engineer, PWD Government of Delhi, as
the leader of the mob. A1 was handed over to the CISF security at
Gate No. 3 but he managed to slip away when PW1 went to the
room of the DG(W) on the first floor. Another participant in the
mob was A2, Assistant Engineer, PWD Government of Delhi.
PW1 identified both A1 and A2 present in the Court. PW1 did not
undergo any medical examination as there was no visible external
or internal injury on his head, neck or temple/cheek.
14. PW1, in his examination before the trial court,
substantially supported the version he set out in Ext. PW1/A. In his
cross examination, PW1 deposed that he could not recollect how
many persons were standing outside his office. According to PW1,
about 20 persons had come inside his room. He admitted that he
did not call the police when he saw the 20 persons. PW1 further
deposed that he was alone in his room doing his work and no other
official was present with him. According to PW1, 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 PW5, PW6 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 A1. PW1 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.
15. PW3, Stenographer, DG CPWD, Nirman Bhawan
deposed that on 26.06.2003, at about 3.00 PM, some members of
an association, who were about 30 to 40 in number, came there
raising slogans. After some time, PW1 came out of his room and
asked the security guard to remove them. The members of the mob
left after about 10 to 15 minutes. PW1 remained there for about 2
to 3 minutes and thereafter left. PW3 further deposed that he
neither saw any member of the mob abusing anyone nor noticed
any item in a damaged condition in PW1's office. He was also not
told about any incident of abuse, damage or manhandling by PW1.
He further deposed that he cannot identify any of the accused
persons. At this juncture, the prosecutor is seen to have sought the
permission of the court to 'cross examine' the witness on the
ground that he was resiling from his earlier statement. This request
was allowed by the trial court.
15.1. On further examination by the Prosecutor, PW3
admitted that he had been interrogated by the police, but denied
having stated to the police that when he reached the office of PW1
on hearing a commotion, he had seen the articles on the table
scattered, the telephone instrument lying on the floor, the glass
broken, or the spectacles of PW1 lying on the floor or that PW1
had told him that the latter was abused, misbehaved with or
manhandled by members of the mob, or that he could identify
those persons. PW3 failed to identify A1 and A2, who were
present in the Court.
16. PW5, Superintendent Engineer, PWD deposed that on
26.06.2003, while posted as Superintending Engineer (P&A) at
K.G. Marg, at about 3.00 PM, he along with PW6, the then
Executive Engineer heard slogans from outside. Upon opening the
door, they did not find anyone outside, though they felt some
uneasiness. The slogans had stopped by then. They then proceeded
to the room of PW1. On entering the room of PW1to ascertain
what had happened, they found him disturbed. Telephones were
lying on the floor, one spectacle was lying broken on the table,
broken pieces of a water glass were lying both on the table and on
the floor, and one paper holder was also found broken on the table.
One private security guard cum peon, Ram Chander, was clearing
the table and floor. PW5 further deposed that PW1 told them that
he had been assaulted and abused by some persons. PW1 then
called the Director General, CPWD on telephone and was
narrating the incident, but the conversation appeared to be
incomplete. Thereafter, he along with PW6, the private security
guard and PW1 proceeded to Nirman Bhawan in the official car of
PW1. On reaching Gate No. 3 of Nirman Bhawan, which is the
entry gate to the DG office, they found some persons standing near
the security personnel. PW1 pointed towards one person and
raised an alarm stating that the said person had assaulted him
earlier that day in his office. This was also told to the security staff
present there, who detained the said person. Thereafter, PW1 went
to the office of the Director General Works, leaving them at the
gate. After a few minutes, a large crowd came from upstairs and
the person who had been detained by the security staff slipped
away. PW5 could not identify the person who had been detained
by the security personnel. At this juncture, the prosecutor is seen to
have sought the permission of the court to put a leading question
on the point of identification. This request was allowed by the trial
court. The attention of PW5 was drawn towards the accused
persons present in the court, but PW5 was not able to identify
them.
17. PW-6, Executive Engineer, CPWD, substantially
supported the case of PW-5 during his chief examination before
the trial court. However, PW6 also failed to identify the accused
persons present in the court.
18. Both A1 and A2 stand charged for the offences
punishable under Sections 353 and 189 read with Section 34 of
the IPC on the allegation that they assaulted PW1 while he was
in the discharge of his official duties, thereby deterring and
preventing him from performing his public functions.
19. The main question that arises for consideration is
whether the prosecution has been able to establish, beyond
reasonable doubt, that an assault was committed upon PW1
while he was discharging his public duty.
20. The case of PW1 regarding assault or damage is not
supported by PW5 and PW6. Both witnesses categorically
deposed that although they heard certain slogans being raised,
they did not witness any abuse, manhandling, or damage being
caused to PW1. Further, the identity and specific role attributed
to each of the accused persons have not been established, as the
said witnesses failed to identify any of the accused. The
testimony of PW1 also does not prove the ingredients of the
offences charged against the accused persons beyond reasonable
doubt. In the absence of any reliable ocular evidence, the trial
court was right in acquitting the accused persons. There is no
infirmity calling for an interference by this Court.
21. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
22. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 10, 2026
p'ma
