The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroboration and consistency in testimonies to sustain a conviction, and the benefit of doubt principle in criminal cases.

Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State.

2. This revision petition under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2014, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.03 (03) of 2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Sonamura whereby the Addl. Sessions Judge has affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.06.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura, West Tripura in GR Case No.386 of 2012 convicting the petitioner for committing offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer one year RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default imprisonment. Again the petitioner has been sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default imprisonment under Section 332 of the IPC pursuant to the conviction under Section 332 of the IPC.

3. In this regard, it is to be noted here that the first appellate court has made modification in the mode of execution.

“But, I find that learned court below while sentencing the accused both under Section 353 of I.P.C. and under Section 332 of I.P.C. separately ordered that both the sentences are to run consecutively. In my opinion, if both the sentences are to run consecutively it will be a harsh punishment to the convict. Accordingly, I modify the sentence and both the sentences shall run concurrently without changing the quantum of punishment”. [Emphasis supplied]

4. Before we embark on assaying the challenge, it would be apposite to mention that sine qua non of Section 332 of the IPC is causing hurt voluntarily to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty. Similarly, Section 353 of the IPC provides that whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty.

5. There is no doubt distinction between these two provisions and that distinction has been made up for different sets of situation. If the voluntary hurt is caused to any person being a public servant ‘in the discharge of his duties’ then the offender would be liable to be punished under Section 332 as his act would be treated as to create deterrence to the said public servant from discharging his duty. Whereas Section 353 has used the word in the execution of his duty as the public servant, if the public servant is subjected to assault or criminal force then the person who has committed such offence would be punishable under Section 353 of the IPC. As such, the primary duty of a criminal court while trying the offence allegedly committed by the accused person is to determine whether he has to be charged under Section 332 or 352 of the IPC meaning the trial court while framing the charge is to categorically mention whether the offence has been done ‘in discharge of the public duty’ or ‘in execution of the public duty’. The former stands for that, a person while discharging his duties was assaulted or subjected to the criminal force would come under Section 332 of the IPC. When the public servant, is assaulted at the time of executing his official duty, it would then come under Section 353 of the IPC. In this case, that aspect of the matter was not taken care of both by the trial court as well as the appellate court.

6. For this purpose, the charge as framed may be looked into. Both the charges under Section 353 and 332 had been framed witho