“You Were Stopped for No Helmet, But You Chose Violence — Conviction Is Inevitable”: Delhi High Court Reverses Acquittal for Assault on Police Constable

"Obstructing and Assaulting a Public Servant in Uniform is Not a Minor Scuffle — It’s a Crime", In a judgment reinforcing the rule of law and the protection of public officials, the Delhi High Court reversed the acquittal of a man who was tried for assaulting a police constable during a routine helmet check. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 781 of 2025, held that the respondent Arvind was guilty under Sections 186 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code for obstructing and using criminal force against a public servant, setting aside the earlier acquittal granted by the Sessions Court.

The High Court, however, upheld the respondent's acquittal under Section 333 IPC (causing grievous hurt to deter a public servant), citing lack of conclusive medical evidence.

The Court remarked: “Merely because the uniform was not seized or that a witness couldn’t identify the accused — that does not erase the fact that a public servant was obstructed and assaulted in broad daylight while discharging his official duty.”

The incident took place on 17 April 2015, when Head Constable Rohtash, deployed on anti-snatching duty near Parashuram Park, Sector-6, Rohini, stopped a Scooty being driven by two boys without helmets. Upon being signalled to stop, they attempted to flee, prompting the QRT (Quick Response Team) to block them with a barricade.

Once stopped, the boys became aggressive, refused to show documents, and allegedly began assaulting Head Constable Rohtash, tearing his uniform and injuring him near the ear. The SHO arrived on the spot and helped overpower the accused.

The accused, Arvind, was arrested from the scene. His brother, being a minor, was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board.

The Trial Court had acquitted Arvind under Sections 186 (obstructing public servant), 353 (assault), and 333 (grievous hurt), accepting his defence that he was falsely implicated after a monetary dispute with the police. The State challenged this acquittal under Section 378 CrPC before the High Court.

Obstruction of Public Servant (Section 186 IPC):

The Court found that the evidence of multiple eye-witnesses, including SHO and constables, clearly established that the respondent obstructed a public servant while on duty. Testimonies of PW-11 (HC Rohtash), PW-5 (SHO), PW-8 and PW-9 (Constables) were consistent.

“The Respondent, instead of showing the documents, entered into a scuffle... The offence under Section 186 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

The High Court held that the Trial Court erred in treating minor discrepancies in Daily Diary entries (DD No. 23A) as fatal to the prosecution case.

Use of Criminal Force (Section 353 IPC):

The High Court held that intentional scuffle and beating of HC Rohtash squarely fell under the definition of “criminal force” under Sections 349 and 350 IPC.

“Beating and the scuffle between PW-11 HC Rohtash and the Respondent, would qualify as use of criminal force… used to obstruct HC from discharging his duty.”

The defence that the officer had taken a bribe and falsely implicated the respondent was rejected.

“Had there been any intent to extract money, the ₹11,000 recovered from the respondent would not have been officially recorded in the personal search memo.”

The Court emphasized that filing a search memo reflecting the exact amount undermines the bribery claim, observing:“The very fact that this money had been shown as found in the Personal Search Memo of the Respondent, demolishes his defence.”

Causing Grievous Hurt (Section 333 IPC):

Despite prosecution claims of hearing loss due to the assault, the High Court found the medical evidence inconclusive.

“The MLC noted pain in the right ear but no external injury… Final PTA report confirming hearing loss was never placed on record.”

The Court further noted that the complainant never followed up medically after two initial hospital visits.

“There is not a single medical document to show that the pain in the right ear was consequent to any injury caused by the Respondent or that it resulted in loss of hearing.”

Therefore, the offence under Section 333 IPC was not established, and the acquittal on this charge was upheld.

 “The Allegation of Bribery Does Not Hold Water”

The respondent claimed that the police demanded a bribe of ₹11,000, which was forcibly taken, and the case was filed after his mother protested.

The Court responded: “It nowhere appeals to reason that the Respondent was let off and then returned with his mother... The recovery of money in the personal search memo falsifies the defence of money extraction.”

Further, arrest and seizure memos showed the process was conducted in the presence of the mother, contradicting the narrative of being falsely implicated after being released.

Conviction for Assault and Obstruction, Acquittal for Grievous Hurt

The Delhi High Court concluded: “The learned ASJ fell in error in giving undue importance to minor contradiction… The Respondent is held guilty under Sections 186 and 353 IPC.”

However, the Court maintained: “The offence under Section 333 IPC is not proved… The Respondent is entitled to acquittal under that charge.”

The matter is now listed for arguments on sentence on 11 August 2025.

Date of Decision: 4 August 2025