A public servant can only be convicted under Section 332 IPC if the assault is intended to prevent or obstruct him from discharging his official functions.

ORDER

A Deputy Tahsildar was attacked by the accused persons while he was riding his scooter through a public road, for which the police has charge sheeted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 341, 332, 506(1) r/w Section 149 IPC . The trial court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under , 147, 341, 332 and 506(1) . In appeal, the first appellate court confirmed the conviction for the offence under Section 332 and acquitted the accused against all other offence. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused came up.

2. The alleged incident had happened in a public road while the Deputy Tahsildar/de facto complainant was riding his scooter at about 6.30 p.m. It has not happened within the premises wherein he was working or discharging his official functions. It has not happened within the working hours starting from 10 a.m to 5 p.m. It has not happened within the official premises or any other annexed building, but happened while he was in a public road riding his scooter at about 6.30 p.m. The very case advanced by the prosecution is that he was on the way to serve election ID cards to somebody else. The movement register of the said officer was also not produced in order to show that he was actually on the way to somewhere for the purpose of discharging his official functions. A mere assertion that he was on the way to add new voters in the voters list cannot be accepted, unless supported by sufficient corroboration, for which no corroborative piece of evidence was adduced. The mere fact that some of the officials were attacked after the office hours somewhere in a public place, may not be sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 332 IPC . The act must be intended for preventing or obstructing the person from the discharge of his official functions. It must be connected with his official functions and there should be a nexus. In the absence of such nexus, no criminal liability can be fastened for the offence under . Both the courts below have committed a grave error in appreciating the nature of offence or criminal liability that can be fastened under and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice and liable to be rectified by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Hence both the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and the first appellate court for the offence punishable under will stand set aside. No charge was framed for the alleged assault or injury, if any received, without which no conviction can be rendered on the said ground. In fact, there is no minor offence attached to the offence under . Necessarily, there should be a separate charge in order to fasten liability for the injuries sustained on the alleged act of the accused under any of the provisions in the . Hence, it is a case of clear acquittal. The revision petition/accused is acquitted and set at liberty. The bail bond, if any, executed will stand cancelled.

The Criminal Revision Petition will stand allowed accordingly.