Intent to deter a public servant is essential for conviction under Section 332 IPC, and lack of evidence supporting such intent necessitates acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Challenge was given by the appellants by filing the appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.3.2007 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval in Atrocity Sessions Case no.3 of 2004, whereby both the accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and were ordered to undergo sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation that in failure to pay the fine amount, further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 506(2) and 114 IPC and further were acquitted for the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act”).

2. During pendency of the present appeal, the appellant no.2 being accused no.2 of the Sessions Case died and hence, the present appeal stood abated against him.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, concentrating his argument in connection with the appellant no.1, submitted that the allegation under the Atrocities Act as well as Sections 504 and 506(2) IPC were not found to be proved by the learned Trial Court Judge and taking into consideration the crux of the complaint, the offence under Section 332 IPC would also not become believable. Advocate Mr. Dagli submitted that the intent of the accused becomes a crucial factor, which requires to be examined in order to consider any act of the accused to deter the public servant in discharge of his public duty. Advocate Mr. Dagli submitted that the accused were demanding for the solvency certificate papers and the insistence was of the accused to personally hand over the solvency certificate since they were to be produced in the Court of law for bail purpose. Advocate Mr. Dagli submitted that the case has been put up by the accused for issuance of the solvency certificate. The complainant had demanded money, which was not agreeable to the appellant-accused and therefore, in counter, the FIR has been filed. Advocate Mr. Dagli further submitted that the case of the complainant could not be proved as alleged of causing injury since no medical evidence has been produced during the trial, nor the complainant himself had made any effort to visit the Doctor for the treatment of the injuries. It is also the submission of learned advocate Mr. Dagli that the persons who were alleged to be present at the office who was the Sarpanch – Vimal Devsibhai Solanki and Sarman Kachara Vadher at the Panchayat office have not supported the complainant’s case. It is their specific evidence that no such incident had occurred.

4. Countering the arguments, Mr. Rohankumar H. Rawal, learned APP has submitted that the undisputed fact, which has come on record is of the presence of the complainant in the Panchayat office, where both the accused had come there and had abused the complainant and had caused injury, while he was performing his duty. The very act itself proves the fact of voluntarily causing hurt to deter the Talati-cum-Mantri, the complainant to perform his duty. Mr. Rawal, learned APP has submitted that threat of both the accused were so severe that the complainant had to place leave from his duty on that day and immediately, the complainant had informed by fax to the District Superintendent of Police and on the basis of the fax, Police Sub-Inspector–Shri Pandya of Talala Police Station had visited the complainant for the registration of the complaint. Referring to the observations made by the learned Trial Court, Mr. Rawal submitted that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused from other charges while the charges under Section 332 IPC had been proved and therefore, had requested to uphold the judgment of conviction.

5. The convic