Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mahendra Kumar Sonker, a Patwari, was convicted under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for allegedly assaulting or using criminal force to deter members of a trap team from discharging their duty during a corruption trap proceeding. The appellant was originally charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC, but was acquitted of all other charges. His wife, Mamta, was also acquitted of all charges. The only surviving conviction was under Section 353 IPC, which was confirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses, including the complainant Babulal Ahirwar (PW-1), panch witness O.P. Tiwari (PW-4), and trap team leader N.K. Parihar (PW-8). The evidence showed that the appellant objected to being apprehended, threw away the bribe notes, and had to be forcibly made to sit in the vehicle. However, there was no evidence of any assault or use of criminal force by the appellant. The wife's actions of striking her head on the jeep were not attributed to the appellant. The Court held that the ingredients of Section 353 IPC were not attracted, as mere resistance or objection without assault or criminal force does not constitute the offence. The Court also noted the inconsistency in convicting the appellant while acquitting his wife on the same evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence under Section 353 IPC were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Assault or Criminal Force to Deter Public Servant - Section 353 IPC - Ingredients - The prosecution must prove that the accused assaulted or used criminal force to a public servant in execution of duty, or with intent to prevent or deter such duty, or in consequence of anything done in lawful discharge of duty - Held that mere resistance or objection without assault or criminal force does not attract Section 353 IPC (Paras 15-19). B) Criminal Law - Criminal Force - Definition - Section 350 IPC - Criminal force requires intentional use of force without consent in order to commit an offence, or intending to cause injury, fear or annoyance - Held that the evidence did not establish any intentional use of force by the appellant (Paras 16, 19-23). C) Criminal Law - Assault - Definition - Section 351 IPC - Assault requires a gesture or preparation causing apprehension of imminent use of criminal force - Held that no such gesture or preparation was proved (Paras 18-19). D) Evidence - Acquittal of Co-Accused - Same Evidence - Where the wife of the appellant was acquitted under Section 353 IPC on the same evidence, the conviction of the appellant on the same evidence is inconsistent and unsustainable (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The conviction and sentence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 353 IPC.
Law Points
- Ingredients of Section 353 IPC
- Definition of criminal force under Section 350 IPC
- Definition of force under Section 349 IPC
- Definition of assault under Section 351 IPC
- Acquittal of co-accused on same evidence
