Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 7230
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sandipkumar C. More, J
Punam Sureshrao Aundhakar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 570 OF 2023 | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 600 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anil S. Mardikar, Y. P. Bhelande, P. V. Navlani
For the Respondents: A. M. Joshi
Conviction for an uncharged offence is invalid if the offence is not a minor component of the charged offence or lacks required statutory procedures. Furthermore, obstruction of a public servant requires specific proof of active interference with official duties, failing which such charges cannot be sustained.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 186, 323, 353 and 506(i) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 195, 218 and 222 - Conviction for offence not charged - Conviction under Section 186 IPC is unsustainable when no charge was framed and mandatory statutory requirement of written complaint by public servant under Section 195 CrPC was not complied with. (Paras 11, 13, 14, 17)
(B) Offence - Requirement of ingredients - Sections 186 and 353 IPC relate to distinct offences operating in separate spheres - Section 186 IPC cannot be treated as a minor offence to Section 353 IPC to allow for automatic conviction without charge. (Paras 12, 16)
(C) Evidence - Sufficiency of - To sustain conviction under Section 353 IPC, prosecution must prove active obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of official duties - Mere presence of official in office without proof of duty being performed at the time of incident is insufficient to attract penal liability. (Paras 28, 30, 32)
Facts of the case:
The appellants sought reinstatement of an employee in a local government office. Following a refusal, an alleged confrontation occurred. The appellants were charged and convicted for offences including assualt, criminal intimidation, and obstruction of a public servant. One appellant was convicted under Section 186 IPC despite no formal charge, and the other was convicted for serious offences involving assault and intimidation.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the ingredients for obstructing a public servant in the discharge of duty were not established as there was no evidence confirming the official was actively performing duties during the incident. Furthermore, the conviction for Section 186 IPC was illegal due to the absence of a formal charge and the failure to adhere to the mandate of Section 195 CrPC. Only the charge of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 IPC was substantiated by medical evidence, necessitating modification of the sentence.
Issues: Whether a conviction for a non-charged offence is permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the evidence sufficiently proves the charge of deterring a public servant from official duty.
Ratio Decidendi: Conviction for a distinct offence not formally charged is impermissible unless it qualifies as a minor offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure; however, where the offence requires a mandatory statutory complaint or operates in a different legal sphere, such conviction cannot be sustained. Additionally, obstructing a public servant requires proof of active deterrence during the performance of official functions.
Result: Appeal of the first appellant allowed; conviction set aside. Appeal of the second appellant partly allowed; conviction under serious sections set aside, conviction under Section 323 IPC maintained with sentence modified to a fine.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of charges, procedural history and background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contentions regarding evidence inconsistencies and legal validity of charges. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. assessment of charge framing and prima facie evidence against the appellants. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. distinct nature of section 186 and 353 ipc and illegality of conviction without specific framing. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. strict interpretation of section 353 ipc regarding discharge of official duty. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. evaluation of evidence for section 323 and discretionary sentencing review. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 7. final orders and disposal of criminal appeals. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
Both these Appeals are directed against one and the same Judgment and order of conviction dated 21/8/2023 passed by the learned District Judge-5 & Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial court’) in Sessions Case No. 128/2019. The Criminal Appeal No. 570/2023 is preferred by the Appellant/Punam Suresh Aundhakar i.e. Original Accused No.2 in the aforesaid Sessions Case, challenging her conviction at the hands of learned trial court for the offence punishable under Section 186 of Indian Penal Code. She is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months. Whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 600/2023 is preferred by the Appellant/Datta Purushottam Dhomane i.e. Original Accused No.1, challenging his conviction in the aforesaid Sessions Case recorded for the offences punishable under Section 353, 323 and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code. The Appellant/Datta is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code, Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 506(i) of Indian Penal Code.
2. To avoid ambiguity, both the Appellants are referred by their names as Appellant/Punam and Appellant/Datta.
3. Background facts of the case are as under :
Sagar Patil i.e. the Complainant (PW-3) was posted as Block Development Officer at Panchayat Samiti, Bhatkuli, District Amravati. The Appellant/Datta was Vice Chairman of Zilla Parishad, Amravati at the relevant time and he was also the Chairman of Agriculture and Husbandry Department. The Appellant/Punam was posted as Development Officer (Agriculture) at Panhayat Samiti, Bhatkuli, District Amravati. At the relevant time, she was working under the control of Complainant Sagar Patil. The Complainant, on 6/3/2018, vide his office order had relieved the Appellant/Punam by noting flaws in her work.
On 7/3/2018, complainant Sagar Patil attended his office at about 10.30 a.m. The other staff members were also present on that day. However, at about 5.00 p.m. on the same day, both the Appellants/Accused along with the father of Appellant/Punam entered the chamber of Sagar Patil, where he was doing his official work along with his staff. The Appellant/Datta then asked Sagar Patil to recall his office order dated 6/3/2018 and to reinstate the Appellant/Punam again under his control. Since Sagar Patil refused for the same, the Appellant/Datta threw a chair towards Sagar Patil and also slapped him by holding his collar and assaulted him by hand.
Besides, the Appellant/Datta threatened Sagar Patil by uttering words that he would set his office on fire. The Appellant/Punam had also quarreled with Sagar Patil at the relevant time, and therefore, Sagar Patil lodged report against both the Appellants by alleging that they obstructed him while discharging his official duty.
4. The chargesheet, on completion of investigation, was filed by the concerned Investigating Officer against both the Appellants for the offences punishable under Section 353, 323, 504 and 506(i) read with Sect
