Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals against a common judgment of conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Sessions Case No. 128/2019. The appellants, Punam Sureshrao Aundhakar (Accused No.2) and Datta Purushottam Dhomane (Accused No.1), were convicted for offences under the Indian Penal Code. The incident occurred on 7/3/2018 when the complainant, Sagar Patil (PW-3), a Block Development Officer, was in his office. The appellants, along with Punam's father, entered his chamber and demanded that he recall his order relieving Punam from duty. When he refused, Datta allegedly threw a chair, slapped him, and threatened to set the office on fire. Punam also quarreled with the complainant. The trial court convicted Datta under Sections 353, 323, and 506(i) IPC, and Punam under Section 186 IPC, despite no charge under that section being framed. The High Court examined the legality of Punam's conviction, noting that Section 186 IPC is not a minor offence of Section 353 IPC and requires sanction under Section 195 CrPC, which was not obtained. The court also found that the evidence against Datta was inconsistent and insufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court allowed both appeals, setting aside the convictions and acquitting both appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 195 CrPC - Offence under Section 186 IPC - Sanction under Section 195 CrPC is mandatory for prosecution under Section 186 IPC, as it is a distinct offence and not a minor offence of Section 353 IPC. The trial court's conviction of accused No.2 under Section 186 IPC without sanction is illegal and unsustainable (Paras 14-18). B) Criminal Procedure - Charge Framing - Minor Offence - Section 222 CrPC - Section 186 IPC is not a minor offence of Section 353 IPC, as the ingredients differ. Conviction under Section 186 IPC without framing a charge is not permissible under Section 222 CrPC, which applies only to minor offences. The trial court erred in convicting accused No.2 under Section 186 IPC without a charge (Paras 12-15). C) Indian Penal Code - Assault and Obstruction - Sections 353, 323, 506(i) IPC - Evidence - The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 assaulted or obstructed the complainant in discharge of public duty. Discrepancies in witness testimony and lack of corroboration render the conviction unsafe. Accused No.1 is entitled to acquittal (Paras 19-24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of Appellant/Punam under Section 186 IPC without a charge and without sanction under Section 195 CrPC is sustainable, and whether the conviction of Appellant/Datta under Sections 353, 323, 506(i) IPC is supported by evidence.
Final Decision
Both appeals allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 21/8/2023 passed by the learned District Judge-5 & Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Case No. 128/2019 is set aside. Both appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
Law Points
- Section 186 IPC is not a minor offence of Section 353 IPC
- Sanction under Section 195 CrPC is mandatory for Section 186 IPC
- Conviction without charge for a distinct offence is illegal
- Discrepancies in prosecution evidence lead to acquittal
