1. Revision against conviction for assault on a police constable by a Member of Parliament. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 15041
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. Lakshman, J
S.VENUGOPALA CHARY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD. BOATH PS. ADILABADM – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1574 OF 2008
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. L. Ravichander, Mr. K.R. Prabhakar
For the Respondents: Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. L. Ravichander, Mr. K.R. Prabhakar
For the Respondents: Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao
Important Points
Section 197 of the CrPC does not protect public servants from prosecution for acts that are not performed in the discharge of their official duties; specifically, assaulting a public servant is not an official duty of a Member of Parliament.
Subject
Criminal Law - Assault and Public Servant Sanction
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 321, 323 and 332 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 197 - Prosecution of public servant - Sanction - Assault by Member of Parliament on Police Constable - Whether assault on a public servant can be considered as an act performed in discharge of official duty - Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not extend protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant while in service, but only those done in discharge of official duty - It is no part of the duty of a Member of Parliament to assault a public servant - Consequently, no sanction is required for prosecution in such cases (Paras 12, 12(i), 12(ii)).
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 118 - Witness credibility - Testimony of police officers is not to be rejected merely because they are official witnesses or if independent witnesses were not examined (Para 17).
(C) Evidence - Medical Examination - Delay in medical examination of the victim - Delay of 72 hours not a ground to reject prosecution case if the injury is consistent with the alleged assault (Para 18).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Member of Parliament, was accused of assaulting a Police Constable (PW.1) at an Inspection Bungalow after the latter conveyed a message from the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. The accused allegedly punched the constable in the mouth, causing a bleeding injury. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 332 of the IPC. On appeal, the Sessions Judge modified the conviction to Section 323 of the IPC but confirmed the sentence of six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner challenged this in revision, primarily arguing that no sanction was obtained to prosecute him as a public servant.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the act of assaulting a public servant cannot be attributed to the discharge of official duties of a Member of Parliament. The evidence provided by PW.1, corroborated by other police witnesses and a medical certificate, was sufficient to establish the offense of voluntarily causing hurt.
Issues: The primary issues were whether sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary for the prosecution of a Member of Parliament for assault and whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 323 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that protective cover under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is restricted to acts done by public servants in the discharge of official duty; assaulting someone is not an official duty. The conviction under Section 323 IPC was upheld as the act of causing hurt was proven.
Result: Revision dismissed.
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 118 - Witness credibility - Testimony of police officers is not to be rejected merely because they are official witnesses or if independent witnesses were not examined (Para 17).
(C) Evidence - Medical Examination - Delay in medical examination of the victim - Delay of 72 hours not a ground to reject prosecution case if the injury is consistent with the alleged assault (Para 18).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Member of Parliament, was accused of assaulting a Police Constable (PW.1) at an Inspection Bungalow after the latter conveyed a message from the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. The accused allegedly punched the constable in the mouth, causing a bleeding injury. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 332 of the IPC. On appeal, the Sessions Judge modified the conviction to Section 323 of the IPC but confirmed the sentence of six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner challenged this in revision, primarily arguing that no sanction was obtained to prosecute him as a public servant.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the act of assaulting a public servant cannot be attributed to the discharge of official duties of a Member of Parliament. The evidence provided by PW.1, corroborated by other police witnesses and a medical certificate, was sufficient to establish the offense of voluntarily causing hurt.
Issues: The primary issues were whether sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary for the prosecution of a Member of Parliament for assault and whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 323 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that protective cover under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is restricted to acts done by public servants in the discharge of official duty; assaulting someone is not an official duty. The conviction under Section 323 IPC was upheld as the act of causing hurt was proven.
Result: Revision dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over lack of sanction for prosecution and insufficiency of evidence to prove assault. (Para 8 )
3. Assault not part of MP's official duty; prosecution valid without sanction. Evidence sufficient for hurt under Section 323 IPC. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Section 197 CrPC sanction not required for acts outside official duty; assault on public servant is not an official act. (Para 12 )
5. Criminal revision dismissed; conviction under Section 323 IPC and sentence confirmed. (Para 25 )
6. Is prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC required to prosecute a public servant for an act not connected to official duty?
No. Sanction is not required for acts that are not performed in the discharge of official duty. Assaulting a public servant is no part of an MP's duty. (Para 12 )
7. Does delay in medical examination of a victim automatically disprove the prosecution's case?
No. Delay alone is not a ground to reject the case if the evidence otherwise supports the nature and timing of the injury, especially to a delicate body part like the lip. (Para 18 )
8. Can a court modify a conviction from a more serious offence to a lesser one while confirming the sentence?
Yes, an appellate court can modify a conviction under a more serious section (e.g., Section 332 IPC) to a lesser one (e.g., Section 323 IPC) if the evidence supports the lesser offence. (Para 20 , 21 , 23 )
ORDER:
Heard Mr. L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K.R. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner - accused and Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the judgment dated 21.10.2008 in Crl.A. No.20 of 2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short 'appellate Court') dismissing the appeal by modifying the conviction of the accused into one under Section 323 of IPC and confirming the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath (for short 'trial Court') in C.C. No.140 of 1999.
3. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C. No.140 of 1999. The offence alleged against him is punishable under Section - 332 of IPC. The allegations levelled against him are as follows:
i) PW.9, the then MRO received a telephone call from Parliament Secretariat in between 3.30 and 4.00 p.m. to pass the information on to the accused, who is the then Member of Parliament. Then, he passed on the said information to the police station, Boath.
ii) PW.1, the complainant having received the said information from PW.9, went to the Inspection Bungalow, where the accused was staying, to inform the same to the accused. Accordingly, PW.1 informed the said message and in the meanwhile, the accused called him back and asked him about two cases i.e., Crime No.7 of 1999 and 8 of 1999. He told PW.1 not to harass and arrest the accused persons therein, on which PW.1 informed that it is not in his purview and it is within the purview of the Circle Inspector of Police. Then, the accused scolded PW.1 saying that he was talking in a drunken state and thereafter gave a fist blow on the mouth of PW.1 due to which, PW.1 received bleeding injury on his lower lip. The accused also caught hold of his shirt collar.
iii) Thus, the petitioner - accused committed the offence punishable under Section - 332 of IPC.
4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses including PW.1 and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet. The same was taken on file as C.C. No.140 of 1999.
5. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 13 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and MO.1 was also marked. On behalf of the accused, he himself examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D4.
6. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, vide judgment dated 06.02.2006, learned trial Court recorded conviction against the accused for the offence under Section - 332 of IPC and accordingly imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one (01) month.
7. Challenging the said conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the accused preferred an appeal vide Crl.A. No.20 of 2006. The learned appellate Court, vide judgment dated 21.10.2008, dismissed the said appeal modifying the conviction of the accused into one under Section - 323 of IPC, however, confirmed the sentence of imprisonment.
8. Challenging the same, the accused filed the present revision on the following grounds:
i) There is no previous sanction to prosecute the case against the accused as he was a Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha). A trial without sanction is without jurisdiction. The appellate Court totally ignored the law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the sanction and dealt with the said issue casually.
ii) There is no iota of evidence except the evidence of PWs.2 to 7 - interested witnesses, to prove the case against the petitioner herein;
iii) The prosecution foisted a case against the petitioner herein with an intention to harass him;
iv) PW.1 cannot be treated as a public servant as he was not in uniform on the date of alleged incident and, therefore, offence under Section - 332 of IPC would not attract.
v) The petitioner - accused is entitled for acqu
