The court affirmed the conviction under Sections 353 and 504 IPC, establishing that abusive actions towards a public servant can constitute assault, deterring them from performing their official duties.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 09.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has affirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 353, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) but modified the sentences awarded to the petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs.500/- for each offence with default sentences. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 07.02.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Class, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.559 of 2003/Trial No.15 of 2005 (arising out of Pindrajora P.S. Case No.52 of 2003 dated 05.07.2003), the petitioner along with Banamali Singh Choudhary and Ramlal Singh were convicted for offence under Sections 353, 504/34 of IPC and had sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years under Sections 353 and 504 of IPC for each offence and had directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. The learned trial court had acquitted the petitioner and co-accused persons from the charge under Section 448 of IPC.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner faced criminal case for the alleged offence under Sections 353, 448, 504/34 of the IPC and was convicted for the offence under Sections 353 and 504/34 of IPC, but acquitted for the offence under Section 448 of IPC.

4. The learned counsel submitted that so far as the office staff of the informant is concerned, they are not the eye-witness to the occurrence and so the main evidence is of that of the informant who was examined as P.W.-4. The learned counsel has referred to the evidence of P.W.-4 as recorded in the trial court’s judgment. During the course of argument, it appeared that the informant had supported his case in chief and the entire cross-examination of the informant is related to his official work whereby he had ultimately refused to issue the death certificate.

5. The learned counsel submitted that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner and the evidence of P.W.-4 are taken to be correct on its face value, no offence under Section 353 of IPC is made out, inasmuch as, the basic ingredients are completely absent. He submitted that no criminal force has been used and there is no allegation that the informant was stopped from performing his official duty. The informant was the Executive Magistrate before whom an application was made for the purposes of issuance of death certificate which the

6. The learned counsel submitted that the term ‘force’ has been defined in Section 349 of IPC. Section 350 defines ‘criminal force’ and Section 351 defines ‘assault’. He submitted that in absence of the basic ingredients constituting the offence under Section 353 of IPC, the impugned judgments are perverse and calls for interference.

7. So far as the offence under Section 504 of IPC is concerned, no argument as such has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and this fact has also been recorded in paragraph 6 of the order dated 27.08.2024.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:

(i) (2015) 7 SCC 423 (Manik Taneja Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.) Para-10

(ii) 1995 SCC Online P&H 157 (Jaswinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab) Para-7

(iii) 2023 SCC OnLine Bombay 818 (Amir Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) Para-7 to 15

(iv) Judgment passed by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.5697 of 2019. Para-16 to 23

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party State.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State opposed the prayer and submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts while holding the petitioner guilty. She submitted that the informant of the case was