Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23.On the other hand, it has been submitted by the Ld. APP that there is no discrepancy in the testimony of the injured and the eye witnesses. He has submitted that the MLC has been duly proved by PW-1. He has submitted that refreshing of memory before deposition is allowed under Section 159 Indian Evidence Act ans hence no illegality can be attached with his testimony. He has further submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case and the guilt of the accused persons is duly established for offences under section 186/353/332 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

24.Let us first examine relevant provisions of law. Section 186 IPC prescribes punishment for causing obstruction to any public person in discharge of his public functions and the punishment prescribed is imprisonment up to three months or fine which may extend to Rs.500/- or both.

25.Section 332 IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under this Section are:-

28.It has been argued by Ld. APP for State that the failure to prove the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C would only vitiate trial in respect of offence punishable U/s 186 IPC, and it would not affect the trial in respect of offence U/s 332 & 353 IPC as no formal complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C is required for taking cognizance for offences punishable under these sections.

29.It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a three judges bench in a case titled "Durgacharan Naik And Ors vs State Of Orissa",1966 AIR 1775, wherein it was held:-

30. The above stated principle of law was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme court in "Pankaj Aggarwal VS. State of Delhi", LAWS(SC)-2001-3-49, wherein it was held:-

"In view of the judgment of this Court in AIR 1966 SC 1775 where the court has analysed the provisions of Section 353,Indian Penal Code and 186,Indian Penal Code and held that the two are distinct offences and the quality of the offence is also different, we are of the opinion that judgment of the Punjab High Court is not correct in State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 17/23 law and has taken a view contrary to the law laid down by this Court. What has been stated earlier in the aforesaid case in relation to the provisions of Section 353,Indian Penal Code would equally apply to the provisions of Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code."