No Proof That Victim Was Discharging Public Duty at the Time of Incident: Delhi High Court Quashes Conviction for Assaulting Traffic Police

In a significant ruling Delhi High Court acquitted three men—Virender Kumar, Devender Kumar, and Jitender Kumar—who were convicted for assaulting a traffic police constable and obstructing public officials from discharging their duties. The Court set aside the judgments of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was based on mere presumptions rather than concrete evidence.

The three accused had been convicted under Sections 186 (obstructing public servant), 353 (assault or criminal force on public servant), 332 (causing hurt to public servant), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment and ordered to pay fines. However, the High Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove key elements of the offenses, raising serious doubts about the entire case.

"No Proof That Victim Was Discharging Public Duty at the Time of Incident" – High Court Finds Major Gaps in Evidence

The prosecution claimed that on August 4, 2004, a traffic constable, Mahesh Kumar, was on duty at Pul Dafrin, Kashmere Gate, along with another constable when they noticed two tempos parked illegally. The accused allegedly refused to remove the vehicles, assaulted the constable, tore his uniform, and threatened to abduct him.

Rejecting the prosecution’s version, the Court ruled that "one of the fundamental requirements to convict someone under Sections 186, 332, and 353 IPC is that the public servant must have been discharging his duty at the time of the alleged offense. The prosecution failed to produce any documentary proof that the constable was on duty at the relevant time."

The Court noted that "the duty roster and other police records that could have established this crucial fact were never produced in court. The absence of such records severely weakens the prosecution’s case and raises serious doubts about whether the incident occurred as alleged."

"Prosecution Relied Solely on Police Testimonies, No Independent Witnesses Examined"

The Court found it highly unusual that the prosecution did not present any independent witnesses, despite the incident allegedly taking place in a busy public area at 6 PM, where a large number of bystanders were present.

Highlighting this critical flaw, the Court ruled that "when police officers are both the complainants and the primary witnesses in a case, independent corroboration becomes essential to eliminate bias or exaggeration. The prosecution’s failure to produce even a single independent witness, despite ample opportunity, raises reasonable doubt about the authenticity of its claims."

The Court also noted that the crane operator, Sanjay, who was allegedly injured in the altercation, was not examined as a prosecution witness. Furthermore, his medical examination revealed 'no fresh external injuries,' contradicting the prosecution’s version of events.

"No Evidence That the Vehicles Were Illegally Parked or Towed" – Court Questions Basis of the Incident

The prosecution’s case was based on the claim that the tempos were illegally parked, leading to the altercation. However, the Court found that no challan was issued against the vehicles, nor were they seized or towed by the police.

Finding this omission significant, the Court ruled that "if the police truly believed that the vehicles were obstructing traffic to the extent that a crane was needed to remove them, it is inconceivable that no legal action was taken against the owners. The failure to seize the vehicles or issue any penalty raises further suspicion about the veracity of the prosecution’s case."

"Defense Witnesses Were Ignored Without Justification" – High Court Criticizes Lower Courts

The Court found that the Trial Court completely disregarded the testimonies of defense witnesses who provided crucial evidence contradicting the prosecution’s version.

Defense witnesses testified that at the time of the incident, the vehicles in question were elsewhere, being driven by individuals unconnected to the accused. They also testified that the accused were called to the police station much later and falsely implicated in the case.

Holding that "the failure of the Trial Court to discuss or analyze the defense witnesses’ statements reflects a serious miscarriage of justice," the High Court ruled that "when defense witnesses provide a plausible explanation that contradicts the prosecution's claims, their testimony cannot be disregarded without proper reasoning."

"MLC Reports Do Not Corroborate Alleged Assault, Raising Doubts on Injuries"

The Court examined the Medico-Legal Certificates (MLCs) of the complainant and the crane operator and found contradictions.

Observing that the MLC of the constable noted 'two aberrations on the chest' but also stated that there were 'no fresh external injuries,' the Court ruled that "when the medical report does not conclusively establish the extent of injuries claimed by the prosecution, such inconsistencies must be weighed in favor of the accused."

"Conviction Under Criminal Intimidation Was Unsupported by Evidence"

The accused were also convicted under Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation). However, the Court found that the lower courts did not analyze whether the essential elements of criminal intimidation were satisfied.

Holding that "a conviction under Section 506 IPC requires proof that a threat was made with the intent to cause alarm or compel the victim to do or refrain from doing something against their will," the Court ruled that "the Trial Court mechanically convicted the accused without discussing how the offense was made out."

The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The lack of documentary proof of the constable’s duty status, the failure to examine independent witnesses, the contradictions in medical reports, and the absence of action against the vehicles all pointed to serious flaws in the prosecution’s case.

Setting aside the conviction, the High Court ruled: "The impugned judgments and orders of the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court are set aside. The petitioners are hereby acquitted of all the offenses alleged against them."

The Court further directed that "the accused be released from jail forthwith if not required in any other case."

The Delhi High Court’s ruling reaffirms that "in criminal cases, the prosecution carries the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere assumptions cannot replace concrete evidence."

By acquitting the accused and exposing the gaps in the prosecution’s case, the Court has reinforced that "every element of an alleged offense must be established with clarity, and courts must not uphold convictions based on weak or unverified claims."

Date of decision: 25/02/2025