Himachal Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Conviction Under S.353 IPC Due to Charge Error, Upholds S.332 IPC Conviction for Assault on Public Servant - 2025-04-08

Himachal Pradesh High Court Partially Overturns Conviction in Assault Case: Procedural Error Leads to Relief Under Section 353 IPC

Shimla, Himachal Pradesh – April 7, 2025 – In a recent judgment delivered by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, a criminal revision petition filed by Ajay Kumar and another individual against the State of Himachal Pradesh has been partially allowed. The case, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla , centered on a judgment dated 27.02.2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, which had upheld a trial court's conviction of the petitioners.

Case Background: Assault on Public Servants

The prosecution's case stemmed from an incident on September 11, 2001, in Palampur, where Jaswant Singh , a driver with Chandigarh Roadways, and Suresh Kumar , a conductor, were allegedly assaulted by Ajay Kumar and Devi Singh , driver and conductor of a private Anurag Bus. The incident purportedly occurred because the bus driven by Jaswant Singh had picked up passengers intended for the Anurag Bus. The accused were charged under Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) and 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty) of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).

Trial and Appellate Court Findings

The Trial Court convicted Ajay Kumar and Devi Singh under both Sections 353 and 332 IPC , sentencing them to imprisonment and fines. The Appellate Court upheld this decision, concurring with the findings that the accused had indeed inflicted injuries on Jaswant Singh and Suresh Kumar while they were discharging their official duties as public servants.

Revision Petition Arguments

Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments, the accused filed a criminal revision before the High Court. Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, representing the petitioners, argued that the lower courts had misconstrued evidence, citing contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies and the non-examination of independent witnesses. He also contended that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act should have been extended to the accused. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, countered that the lower courts' judgments were sound and should not be interfered with in revision.

High Court’s Observations: Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction and Procedural Error

Justice Rakesh Kainthla , after hearing both sides and reviewing the records, emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court's observations in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh and State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao . The Court noted that revision is not an appellate exercise and is meant to correct patent defects, errors of jurisdiction, or law.

A critical flaw was identified in the trial proceedings: "A perusal of the record shows that the learned Trial Court had charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Section 332 read with Section 34 of IPC . No charge was framed against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC . Learned Trial Court never amended the charge to include Section 353 . Therefore learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC for which no charge was framed."

Relying on Jeevo alias Jeevan Kumar vs. State of H.P. , the High Court reiterated the established principle that a person cannot be convicted for an offense for which they were not charged. Consequently, the conviction under Section 353 IPC was deemed unsustainable.

Upholding Conviction Under Section 332 IPC

However, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 332 IPC . Addressing the arguments regarding contradictions in witnesses' testimonies concerning passenger numbers, Justice Kainthla referred to Goverdhan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh , emphasizing that minor discrepancies, especially after a lapse of time, do not necessarily discredit the prosecution's core case. Similarly, regarding the non-examination of independent witnesses, the Court cited Appabhai v. State of Gujarat , stating that the prosecution case cannot be discarded solely due to the absence of independent witness testimonies, acknowledging public apathy in such matters.

The Court found the testimonies of the informant Jaswant Singh (PW-1) and eyewitness Murli Ram (PW-6) to be credible and corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of torn clothes and hair. The suggestions made to the informant during cross-examination were even noted to indirectly support the occurrence of the incident, citing Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra . Furthermore, the Court determined that Jaswant Singh and Suresh Kumar , as employees of Chandigarh Transport Undertakings, fall within the definition of "public servant" under Section 21 of the IPC , making Section 332 IPC applicable.

Finally, regarding the plea for the Probation of Offenders Act, the Court cited Siyasaran v. State of M.P. , stating that this benefit is not typically granted to individuals convicted of using force against government servants.

Final Decision

In conclusion, the High Court partly allowed the revision petition. The conviction and sentence under Section 353 IPC were set aside due to the procedural error in charging. However, the conviction and sentence under Section 332 IPC were upheld. The revision petition was disposed of accordingly. This judgment underscores the importance of proper charge framing in criminal trials and reaffirms the protection afforded to public servants under Section 332 IPC while discharging their duties.

( Rakesh Kainthla ) Judge High Court of Himachal Pradesh