Jostling & Pushing By Accused With An Attempt To Wriggle Out Was Not With Any Intention To Assault Or Use Criminal Force: SC Sets Aside Concurrent Conviction U/S 353 IPC
|The Supreme Court acquitted a man who was concurrently convicted for the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court said that there is no evidence to indicate that the accused assaulted or used criminal force on the trap party in execution of their duties or for the purpose of preventing or deterring them in discharging their duties.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed, “Further, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused used any hard and blunt object. PW-13 Dr. H.L. Bhuria had deposed that the injuries on PW-9 Niranjan Singh, PW-8 N.K. Parihar, Constable Raj Kumar and Constable Shivshankar might have been caused by hard and blunt object. In view of the above, there is no evidence to indicate that the accused assaulted or used criminal force on the trap party in execution of their duties or for the purpose of preventing or deterring them in discharging their duties. In short, none of the ingredients of Section 353 are attracted. The jostling and pushing by the accused with an attempt to wriggle out, as is clear from the evidence, was not with any intention to assault or use criminal force."
Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appeared on behalf of the appellant/accused while AOR Arjun Garg appeared on behalf of the respondent/State.
Brief Facts -
Based on the complaint of a man (complainant) 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 was removed from his post. The appellant/accused who was posted as Patwari was entrusted with the inquiry into a complaint against the complainant to the effect that he had made a false complaint against the said President. The appellant found the charge against the complainant to be false and when the complainant sought a copy of the report from him, he allegedly demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification. Resultantly, the complainant filed a complaint against him and an FIR was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and trap proceedings were organized.
The case set up by the prosecution was that the trap party involving police officers waited for the appellant and when he arrived at his house, the complainant accosted him and handed over the currency to him and signalled to the trap party. Hence, the appellant was apprehended by the trap party. Thereafter, the Special Judge acquitted him for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC 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. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court but the same was dismissed. Therefore, he was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “Having considered the oral evidence and the medical evidence, we are constrained to conclude that the prosecution has not established that the appellant has assaulted or used criminal force against the trap party. In fact, what transpires is that when the appellant was apprehended there appears to have been an attempt by the appellant to wriggle out and in the process, jostling and pushing appears to have happened, in the process of the appellant trying to extricate himself from the arrest. None of the ingredients of assault or criminal force have been attracted.”
The Court further emphasised that to take cognizance of Section 186, the procedure under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) ought to have been followed. It also noted that there is not even a complaint by the officer against the appellant for any offence having been committed under Section 186 of the IPC.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and acquitted the accused.
Cause Title- Mahendra Kumar Sonker v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 600)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, AOR Garima Bajaj, Advocates Abhinav Sekhri, Vishwajeet Singh, Karan Dhalla, and Kumar Karan.
Respondent: AOR Arjun Garg, Advocates Aakash Nandolia, Sagun Srivastava, and Kriti Gupta.