The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the charged offences, including the use of criminal force and obscenity.

ORDER

The revision challenges the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner vide judgment dated 12.09.2024 passed in STC No.439 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Vellore, Vellore District and confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, vide judgment dated 29.11.2024 in C.A.No.46 of 2024.

2. The case of the prosecution is that during the State Election conducted in the year 2021, when the defacto complainant was given flying squad duty on 02.04.2021 to disperse a group of persons who were standing to distribute bribe to the voters, he saw the petitioner attempting to escape on seeing the flying squad; that when the defacto complainant and her team prevented the petitioner, the petitioner abused the defacto complainant and her team in filthy and obscene language and also prevented them from doing their official duty besides committing the offence of criminal intimidation; and that therefore, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 294(b) , 353 , 506(1) and 171(E) of the IPC .

3. The prosecution had examined 6 witnesses as PW1 to PW6 and marked 9 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The petitioner neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the prosecution had failed to establish the offence under Sections 171 (E) and 506(i) of the IPC and convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 353 of the and sentenced him as follows:

On appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent/State.

5. The case rests on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The evidence of PW1 as seen from the judgment of the trial Court is that the petitioner obstructed the public servant besides abusing her. It is also seen that PW4 and PW5 turned hostile.

6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in order to attract the offence under Section 353 of the IPC , there must be not only obstruction on but actual use of criminal force or assault on the public servant is necessary, which admittedly is not the allegation or evidence against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.N.John vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 , had held as follows:

23. For a prohibited act to come within the scope of the offence under Section 353 of the IPC , such an act must qualify either as an assault or criminal force meant to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. Obviously, such an act cannot be a mere act of obstruction which is an offence under Section 186 of the . The offence contemplated under of the is of a more serious nature involving criminal force, or assault which attracts more stringent punishment that may extend to two years. On the other hand, the offence of obstruction covered under Section 186 of the is punishable by imprisonment, which may extend to three months at the maximum.

A close examination of Section 353 of the IPC would indicate that to invoke the aforesaid offence, there must be use of criminal force or assault on any public servant in the execution of his official duty or with the intent to prevent or deter such public servant from discharging his duty. It would be clear from a reading of the provisions of Section 186 as well as of the that of the is the aggravated form of offence where criminal force or assault is involved. Unlike in the case of Section 186 of the where voluntarily obstructing any public servant in discharge of his official function is sufficient to invoke the said section, in the case of offence under of the as mentioned above, not only obstr