Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25667
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N.ANIL KUMAR, J
K.P. ASHRAF – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet/3295/2004
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Public Order Offences
Act Referred
Headnote
Public Order - Offences Against Public Servants - IPC Section List - Sections 294(b), 353 - The court upheld the accused's conviction for obstructing a police constable from performing his duties, affirming that the evidence established the necessary elements of the offences under the IPC, despite the accused's intoxication.
Fact of the Case:
The first accused obstructed a police constable on duty by uttering obscene words and pushing him during a traffic control incident, leading to charges under specific sections of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The courts confirmed the conviction of the first accused based on the credible evidence of the constable, underscoring that the elements of the offences were consistently proven without inconsistencies.
Issues: Whether the first accused's actions constituted offences under IPC Section 294(b) and 353, and if the sentences imposed were appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that intoxication was not necessary to prove the offence, as the actions of the accused sufficiently met the criteria for obstruction of a public servant in their duties.
Final Decision: The revision petition was partially allowed, with sentences modified to one month for Section 353 and two weeks for Section 294(b), to run concurrently.
Sri.P.V.Anoop, Sr.Public Prosecutor Sri.M.S.Breez
ORDER
Dated this the 24th day of November 2020 The revision petitioner was the 1st accused in CC No.1147 of
1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Kozhikode and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.335 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode Division. The offence alleged against the accused is punishable under Section 353 , 294(b) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.04.1996 at about 18.15 hours, the accused 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention to cause annoyance to PW1, who was on traffic control duty at the bus stop near railwaystation, the 1st accused uttered obscene words against PW1 and caught hold of his whistle code. After that A1 pushed PW1 on his back and beat on his scapula. The 2nd accused pushed PW1 on the body of the the 1st accused. Thus, it is alleged that the accused 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention prevented PW1, a police constable from discharging his duty and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
3. In order to prove the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 9 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P5 and MOs 1 and 2 on the prosecution side. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused 1 and 2 were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. However, no defence evidence was adduced.
4. By judgment dated 29.12.2000, the learned Magistrate found the accused 1 and 2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 353 , 294(b) r/w 34 of the IPC and accordingly, they were convicted thereunder. For the offence under of the , the accused 1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. For the offence under Section 294 (b) of the , the accused 1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved, the accused 1 and 2 preferred Crl.Appeal No. 35 of 2001 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part. While confirming the conviction under and 294(b) of the , the learned Sessions Judge modified and reduced the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under of the and one month for the offence punishable under (b) of the . The 2nd accused was found not guilty for the offence punishable under and 294(b) of the and accordingly, he was acquitted thereunder. Challenging the conviction and sentence rendered against the 1st accused, this revision petition has been preferred.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the State.
6. PW1 is a police constable. While he was doing official duty on 18.15 hours near railwaystation, Kozhikode, according to him, accused 1 and 2 came near him, the 1st accused uttered obscene words, caught hold of his whistle code and pushed him back. According to PW1, the accused was under the influence of alcohol on the date of occurrence. PW5, the Doctor examined A1 on 14.09.1996 at 7 p.m and issued Ext.P3 drunkenness certificate. PW5 stated before the trial court that the 1st accused had consumed alcohol, but he was not under its influence.
7. PW1 adduced evidence to show that he was on official duty near the railwaystation. He was a public servant. PW1 further adduced evidence to show that intoxicated by the alcoholic effect, A1 uttered obscene words while he was discharging his official duty. The place of occurrence was a public place. It has come out in evidence that the 1st accused came near to him, uttered obscene words, caught hold of his whistle code and pushed him back while he was discharging his official duty in connection with the traffic control duty near the railwaystation. PW1 has no previous enmity towards the 1st accused. From the evidence of PW5, it is very clear that he had consumed alcohol. The of
