Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Mahendra Kumar Sonker – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2012
Decided On : 12-08-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 353 read with Section 186 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 132 read with Section 221] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 195(1)(a)(i) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 215] – Obstructing public servants in performing their public duty – Conviction and sentence – Special Judge, while acquitting appellant from offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act and Section 201 of IPC, convicted him for offence under Section 353 of IPC for attacking members of trap team – What is required to establish criminal force is intentional use of force to any person without that person’s consent in order to committing of any offence – From evidence on record, it will transpire that none of ingredients required for convicting a person under Section 353 of IPC were attracted – There is no evidence to indicate that accused assaulted or used criminal force on trap party in execution of their duties or for the purpose of preventing or deterring them in discharging their duties – To take cognizance of Section 186, procedure under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. ought to have been followed – There is not even a complaint by officer against appellant for any offence having been committed under Section 186 of IPC – Judgment of High Court set aside and appellant acquitted from offence under Section 353 of IPC. (Paras 16, 19, 29, 31 and 32)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal calls in question Judgment dated 14.10.2009 passed by High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1949 of 2007. By the said judgment, appellant’s conviction under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentence of six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed by Special Judge, Sagar has been confirmed. Aggrieved, the appellant is in Appeal.
Findings of Court:
None of ingredients of Section 353 are attracted. The jostling and pushing by accused with an attempt to wriggle out, as is clear from evidence, was not with any intention to assault or use criminal force.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The appeal concerns the conviction of the appellant under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly attacking members of a trap team during a police operation, with the conviction confirmed by the High Court (!) (!) .
The appellant was originally convicted for obstructing public servants in the execution of their duty, but upon review, the court found that the essential ingredients for establishing criminal force under Section 353 IPC were not satisfied (!) (!) .
To establish a charge under Section 353 IPC, it must be proven that the accused intentionally used force against a public servant in the execution of their duty, or with the intent to prevent or deter such a duty, or as a consequence of an act done in lawful discharge of duty (!) (!) .
The legal definition of criminal force requires intentional use of force without the consent of the person, with the purpose of committing an offence or causing injury, fear, or annoyance (!) (!) .
The evidence on record indicated that the appellant's actions involved jostling and pushing while attempting to extricate himself from arrest, rather than assault or use of criminal force as defined by law (!) (!) .
There was no evidence that the appellant used any hard or blunt objects to cause injuries to the police personnel, and the injuries observed could have been caused by other means, but not necessarily by the appellant’s direct use of force (!) .
The court noted that the appellant was not charged under Section 186 of the IPC, which pertains to obstructing public servants, and that proper procedure under the law was not followed for such an offence, as no complaint was made under that section (!) (!) .
Based on the evidence and legal principles, the court held that the ingredients for criminal force under Section 353 IPC were not established, and the appellant’s conviction was set aside, resulting in his acquittal (!) .
The court emphasized that mere pushing or jostling, without intent to assault or use criminal force, does not satisfy the criteria for conviction under Section 353 IPC (!) .
The procedural requirement for taking cognizance of offences under Section 186 of the IPC was not met, reaffirming that the conviction under Section 353 was not justified (!) .
The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence under Section 353 IPC were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the offence (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.
1. The present appeal calls in question the judgment dated 14.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1949 of 2007. By the said judgment, the appellant’s conviction under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentence of six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed by the Special Judge, Sagar has been confirmed. Aggrieved, the appellant is in Appeal.
2. Originally, the appellant along with his wife Mamta stood trial. While the appellant was charged for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) as well as Sections 201 and 353 of the IPC, his wife Mamta was charged under Section 353 and 201 of the IPC.
3. We are, in this appeal, concerned only with the conviction of the appellant under Section 353 of the IPC. The appellant has been acquitted of other charges and his wife Mamta has been completely acquitted including for the offence under Section 353 of the IPC. Accordingly, only those aspects of the facts which have a bearing on the present appeal are set out herein-below.
Brief Facts:
4. The complainant in the original corruption case is one Babulal Ahirwar (PW-1). It appears that on his complaint to the Collector about the irregularities in the work of construction of the Education Guarantee Building, the then President of the Committee constituted for the purpose of construction, Santosh Ahirwar was removed from the President’s post.
5. The appellant, who was posted as Patwari in Circle No. 89, Village Naryaoli, District Sagar had been entrusted with the inquiry into a complaint against the said Babulal Ahriwar to the effect that he had made a false complaint against Santosh Ahirwar. It transpires that the appellant, in the inquiry, found the charge against Babulal Ahirwar to be false. When Babulal Ahirwar sought a copy of the report from the appellant, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification.
6. The said Babulal Ahirwar, on 28.06.2004, filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Sagar against the appellant in this regard. An FIR was registered under Section 7 of the Act and trap proceedings were organized. O.P. Tiwari (PW- 4) and M.K. Choubey were co-opted along with the trap party which consisted of Head Constable Niranjan Singh, Constable Raj Kumar, Constable Shiv Shanker Dube and Inspector N.K. Parihar. The case set up by the prosecution was that they waited for the accused-appellant and when he arrived at his house, Babulal Ahirwar accosted him and handed over the currency to the appellant and signaled to the trap party. The trap party arrived there to apprehend the appellant.
7. We are directly concerned with what transpired at this point since the only surviving Section under which the appellant has been convicted is Section 353 of the IPC. We will deal with this aspect in detail a little later in the judgment.
8. Special Case No. 20 of 2005 was registered against the appellant and his wife for the offences mentioned hereinabove. The appellant and his wife denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and the defence examined three witnesses.
9. By the judgment of 05.09.2007, the learned Special Judge, Sagar while acquitting the appellant for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and Section 201 of the IPC, convicted him for the offence under Section 353 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Additionally, a fine of Rs. 1000/- was imposed and the appellant’s wife was acquitted of all the charges.
10. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court which has since been dismissed.
11. Insofar as the charge under Section 353 of the IPC was concerned, the allegation was that the appellant in collusion with his wi
The court affirmed the conviction under Sections 353 and 504 IPC, establishing that abusive actions towards a public servant can constitute assault, deterring them from performing their official duti....
The court emphasized that the essential ingredients for offences under Sections 341 and 353 IPC were not met, leading to quashing of proceedings.
To establish offences under Sections 341 and 353 IPC, allegations must meet strict legal standards of obstruction and use of force, which were absent in this case.
(1) Investigation of non-cognizable cases – Even if police receives any such complaint relating to non-cognizable offence, police cannot start investigation without there being a green signal from Ma....
Illegal gratification - Suspension order confirmed - Prosecution version establishes the demand, and acceptance of illegal gratification and recovery of tainted money recovered from the appellant, a ....
Intention to insult based on caste must be established for conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act; the absence of such intent results in acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that assaulting a public servant to deter them from discharging their duty constitutes offences under Sections 332 and 353 IPC, and the court may c....
For a conviction under the SC/ST Act, the insult must occur in public view; absence of public witnesses negates the charge.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
