Quashing of Conviction Under IPC Section 353: Supreme Court Ruling on Assault on Public Servant

The case of Mahendra Kumar Sonker v. The State of Madhya Pradesh revolves around a conviction under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly assaulting a public servant. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and ruled in favor of the appellant, quashing the conviction.

The case originated when the appellant, a Patwari, was accused of demanding a bribe and was caught in a trap operation. However, he was acquitted of corruption charges and was only convicted under Section 353 IPC. The Supreme Court ultimately found insufficient evidence to support the conviction and overturned the decision.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel argued that:

• The appellant’s wife was acquitted of the same charge, demonstrating inconsistencies in the case.
• There was no evidence proving an intentional act of assault or use of criminal force against the trap team.
• The incident involved mere jostling and attempts to escape, which do not satisfy the legal requirements of Section 353 IPC.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State contended that:

• The appellant resisted arrest and attempted to escape, which amounted to an obstruction of duty.
• Some members of the trap party sustained injuries, suggesting that force was used.
• The trial court and High Court had already examined the evidence and found the conviction justified.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Court analyzed the legal requirements under Section 353 IPC and noted:

• The definition of “criminal force” under Section 350 IPC requires intentional use of force.
• “Assault” under Section 351 IPC requires an act that causes apprehension of use of force.
• The evidence only indicated pushing and jostling, without proof of an intentional assault on public servants.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court:

• Set aside the conviction under Section 353 IPC.
• Ruled that the incident did not meet the legal definition of “assault or criminal force.”
• Held that the appellant was merely trying to evade arrest and not obstructing the trap party’s duty intentionally.

This ruling clarifies the legal distinction between obstruction and criminal force, setting an important precedent for cases involving public servants.

Petitioner Name: Mahendra Kumar Sonker.
Respondent Name: The State of Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 11-08-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: mahendra-kumar-sonke-vs-the-state-of-madhya-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-11-08-2024.pdf