The High Court of Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) against the acquittal of two Assistant Engineers accused of assaulting a Chief Engineer of the CPWD in 2003. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and specific roles of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the testimony of the sole complainant was not supported by other eye-witnesses.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, presiding over the matter, observed that in the absence of reliable ocular evidence to prove the ingredients of the offences under Sections 186 and 353 of the IPC, the appellate court’s decision to reverse the trial court’s conviction was correct.
Background of the Case
The prosecution case originated from an incident on June 26, 2003, at the Curzon Road Barrack office of PW1, who was then the Chief Engineer of the Married Accommodation Project Zone, CPWD. According to the complaint (Ext. PW1/A), a group of approximately 20 persons suddenly entered his premises around 3:05 PM, overpowered security personnel, and physically attacked him by hitting his head, neck, and temple.
The complainant alleged that during the incident, his spectacles were damaged, a glass of water was broken, and telephone equipment was thrown to the floor. Later that day, PW1 identified Om Prakash (A1) and another individual (A2)—both Assistant Engineers with the PWD—as participants in the mob.
While the trial court on June 28, 2014, had found both accused guilty of offences under Sections 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC, the Additional Sessions Court at Patiala House subsequently reversed this finding on November 1, 2014, leading to the State’s appeal before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
For the State: The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the Appellate Court erred by rejecting the case simply because PW1’s testimony was solitary. The State argued that “no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact” and that a conviction can be founded on a sole reliable witness. It was further submitted that discrepancies in the testimonies were “trivial” and did not strike at the root of the case.
For the Accused: Senior Advocate Satish Tamta, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the acquittal was well-reasoned and based on a proper appreciation of evidence. He argued that the findings were neither perverse nor contrary to law, and that the prosecution had failed to establish the identity of the assailants during the trial.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Court scrutinized the testimonies of PW1 and other prosecution witnesses (PW3, PW5, and PW6).
On Identification and Witnesses: The High Court noted that while PW1 supported his initial complaint, other key witnesses failed to corroborate his version of the assault. Specifically:
- PW3 (Stenographer): Deposed that he neither saw members of the mob abusing anyone nor noticed any damaged items in the office. He failed to identify the accused.
- PW5 and PW6 (Engineers): They reached the room after hearing slogans but stated they did not witness any abuse or manhandling. Crucially, they failed to identify the accused in court, even after the prosecutor was permitted to put leading questions.
On the Complainant’s Testimony: The Court observed that PW1 did not undergo any medical examination as there were “no visible external or internal injury.” Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the testimony of PW1 regarding the assault or damage was not supported by PW5 and PW6, who “categorically deposed that although they heard certain slogans being raised, they did not witness any abuse, manhandling, or damage being caused to PW1.”
Key Observation: The judgment stated:
“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.”
The Decision
Upholding the acquittal, the High Court concluded that there was no “infirmity calling for an interference” with the lower appellate court’s judgment.
“In the absence of any reliable ocular evidence, the trial court (Appellate Court) was right in acquitting the accused persons. There is no infirmity calling for an interference by this Court,” Justice Sudha ruled. The appeal was dismissed as being “sans merit.”
- Case Title: State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) v. Om Prakash & Anr
- Case No: CRL.A. 742/2016
