CNR No.

DLCT02-000329-2006

313 Cr. PC are not evidence. They have not been made on oath. They have not
been tested on the touchstone of cross-examination. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in V.S.Yadav vs Reena, Crl. A. no. 1136/2010, decided on 21/09/2010, has
discussed the scope of examination of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. It has
held as under:

"5. It must be borne in mind that the statement of

accused under Section 281 Cr PC. or under Section
313 Cr. PC. is not the evidence of the accused and it
cannot be read as part of evidence. The accused has an
option to examine himself as a witness. Where the
accused does not examine himself as a witness, his
statement under Section 281 Cr. PC. or 313 Cr. P.C.
cannot be read as evidence of the accused and it has to
be looked into only as an explanation of the
incriminating circumstance and not as evidence. There
is nopresumption of law that explanation given by the
accused was truthful..."
In the present case also, for the aforesaid reason, the statements made by
45.
the accused persons during their examinations under Section 313 Cr.P.C., can't
evidence. Those statements have not been made on oath. No
be considered as

opportunity was given to the opposite party to check the veracity of those
Similarly, the defence put by the Ld.
statements by way of cross-examination.
Defence Counsel to the witnesses has also remained not proved.

46. On the other hand, there is statement of victim on record which has been

made on oath. The law is settled that testimony of an eyewitness/victim should

be believed unless there is specific reason on record to disbelieve him. In the

reason to believe otherwise.

present case I do not find any

proved, I hold that it has been

47.Inthe light of the discussion herein above,
Devender and Jitender, in
beyond réasonable doubts, that accused Virender,
had voluntarily obstructed the
furtherance of their common intention,
186/332/506/34 Page No. 26/27
& ors.; FIR No. 373/2004; PS. Kashuuere Gale; U/s.
cIs'No. 293643/2016; Sate Vs/Virender Kumar
 CNR No. DLCTO2-000329-2006 56
complainant, a public servant, in the discharge of his public functions when he
was trying to tow away a vehicle which was parked in 'no parking zone'. It also

stands proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused persons, in furtherance
of their common intention, had voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant being
a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant and also
threaten the complainant. Thus, the prosecution has proved the ingredients of
offence punishable under Section 186/34, 332/34, 353/34 and 506/34 IPC
against both the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Virender,

Devender and Jitender are found guilty and they are accordingly convicted
for the offences punishable under Section 186/34, 332/34, 353/34 and 506/34
IPG.

48
48. The matter is now listed on point of sentence for 30.11.2022.
49. Copy of judgment be given to the convict Virender, Devender and Jitender
free of cost and copy of judgment be placed on case file.

ETROPOLITAN MACISTRATE
Announced in open Court
on 17th November,2022 (ChatigduSingh)
Metropolitan Magistrate-07/ Central
olitan

FAagis Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi

elhi

CIS No. 293643/2016; State Vs. Virender Kumar & ors.; FIR No. 373/2004; PS. Kasluuere Gale; U/s. 186/332/506/34
Page No. 27/27