Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted a Patwari of the offence under Section 353 IPC, the only surviving conviction after a corruption trap. The evidence showed only jostling and pushing while he tried to wriggle free on being apprehended, which did not amount to assault or criminal force against the trap party with the intent the section requires.
Issues
- Whether the evidence established that the appellant assaulted or used criminal force against members of the trap party in the execution of their duty, or to prevent or deter them from discharging it, so as to attract Section 353 IPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 353, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court broke the section into its three alternative limbs, each requiring assault or criminal force on a public servant, and found none of its ingredients made out on the oral and medical evidence of the trap. (¶¶ 15, 19, 28, 29)
- Sections 349, 350 and 351, Indian Penal Code, 1860The definitions of force, criminal force (intentional use of force without consent in order to commit an offence or to cause injury, fear or annoyance) and assault were set out as the test against which the conduct alleged was measured. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- Section 186, Indian Penal Code, 1860Contrasted with Section 353: voluntary obstruction of a public servant is a distinct offence, with which the appellant was never charged. (¶¶ 30, 31)
- Section 195(1)(a)(i), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Cognizance of an offence under Section 186 IPC requires a written complaint by the public servant concerned; no such complaint by any officer existed here. (¶ 31)
Held
- Section 353 IPC requires assault or criminal force on a public servant in the execution of duty, or with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging it, or in consequence of something done by him in the lawful discharge of duty; criminal force in turn requires intentional use of force without consent in order to commit an offence or to cause injury, fear or annoyance. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- The trap witnesses described the accused objecting, trying to run, swinging and jerking and resisting being put in the vehicle; read with the defence evidence of pushing and shoving, this showed at most jostling and pushing while the accused tried to extricate himself from arrest, not an intention to assault or use criminal force, so none of the ingredients of Section 353 was attracted. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29)
- The doctor's opinion that the trap party's injuries might have been caused by a hard and blunt object did not help the prosecution, since there was no evidence that the accused used any such object. (¶¶ 26, 29)
- Mere obstruction of a public servant falls under Section 186 IPC, for which cognizance requires a written complaint by the public servant under Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC; there was neither a charge nor such a complaint here. (¶¶ 30, 31)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; conviction under Section 353 IPC and the sentence set aside and the appellant acquitted; bail bonds discharged.