1986 Supreme(MP) 740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
K.L. Shrivastava, J.
Dinesh Kumar - Applicant
Vs.
State of M.P. - Respondent
Cr. R. No. 231 of 1983 (I)
Decided On : 29-07-1986

Headnote:(1) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – S. 71, 353 and 332 – offences under S. 353 and 342 – accused can be convicted only for graver offence under section 332.

       (2) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – S.332 – offence committed just after the victim discharged his duties – provision attracted – victim not necessarily should be on duty at the time of offence.

        Short Note

       According to the prosecution, the checking disclosed that 17 passengers were travelling without ticket. On demand, the petitioner did not handover to Vasudeo (P.W.2) the collection sheet and the ticket book. The bus was therefore, taken to the police station Biora and the formalities of checking were completed.

       2. At the Biora bus stand at 9 – 30 p.m. Vasudeo (P.W.2) got down from the jeep. The petitioner came from behind and caused injuries to him by means of a. 'Sariya'. Injuries included two lacerated wounds, to contusions and two abrasions. None was on the vital part of the body. The occurrence was reported at the police station and was recorded in the Roznamcha (vide Ex.P – 4).

       3. Held: The point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed.

       4. In order to attract the applicability of sec. 332 IPC it is not necessary that when the accused indulges in the criminal act complained of the public servant concerned must be discharging his duty. Where subsequent to the duty having been discharged, the accused causes hurt to him, in consequence of anything done by or attempted to be done by him in the lawful discharge of the duty as such public servant, the act of the accused falls within the ambit of the penal provision therein embodied.

       5. On a careful consideration of the material on record, I find that the concurrent conclusion by the Courts below that the petitioner had caused the injuries to Vasudeo (P.W.2) is unassailable. On this point, the evidence of Vasudeo (P.W.2) is duly supported by promptly lodged report at the police station and the medical evidence. There is no merit in the contention that there was darkness and identification of the assailant was not possible.

       6. The offences in question have both been committed in the same transaction. Section 353 IPC embodies the penal provision for assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty and section 332 deals with cases of voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty. The latter is the graver offence. In view of the provision embodied in section 71 IPC, the petitioner cannot be punished for both the offences. Therefore, he may be punished only for the offence under section 332 IPC and not for the offence u/s 353 ibid. The sentence under section 353 has, therefore, to be set aside. In this connection the decision in Ramavs's case (1977 Cr.L.J. 467) may usefully be perused. Petition partly allowed.