Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

36. In this regard it is at first necessary to refer to Sections 333 and 353 of IPC which reads as under

Section 333 of IPC: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty-

Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

37. From reading of Section 333 of IPC it is can safely said that to commit offence under Section 333 of IPC, the accused should have voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty. While Section 353 of IPC is attracted when it is proved that accused assaulted or used criminal force on a public servant with an intent to prevent the public servant from discharging his official duty as such public servant.

38. In view of Sections 333 and 353 of IPC, it is necessary to note that in the present case as discussed supra the prosecution has proved by placing convincing evidence that CW1 and CW2 whereon official duty at the alleged place and time. Also it is proved that accused no 1 and 2 along with split up accused no3 where doing triple riding in a TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG-3613. Also it is held that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused no1 has committed offense under section 279 of IPC .

While the learned advocate for accused No.4 has submitted that the offences under Sections 180, 146 and 196 of IMV Act, the punishment is imposition of fine or imprisonment. Hence submitted that the nominal fine be imposed upon accused No.4.

On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused No.1 has submitted that the accused No.1 is convictred for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 333 and 353 of IPC. He has furnished the copy of document from ICJS Website stating that a criminal case is registered against the accused No.1 in Thalakadu Police Station. Hence he is an habitual offender. The punishment for the offence under Section 279 of IPC is imprisonment of either description which may extend to 6 months or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both. While for the offence under Section 333 of IPC, it is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Further for the offence under Section 353 of IPC the punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Hence the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that maximum imprisonment and fine should be imposed on accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 333 and 353 of IPC.

Further with respect to accused No.1, he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 333 and 353 of IPC. Taking note that the accused No.1 has no criminal antecedents, but due to the said incident C.W.1 had sustained grievous injuries. Hence it is just and proper to impose imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC.

Further taking note that due to rash and negligent driving, the accused No.1 had dashed against C.W.1 voluntarily causing grievous injury and thereby prevented C.W.1 from performing his official duty. Hence this court is of the considered view that it is just and proper to impose imprisonment of 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 333 of IPC. Also it is just and proper to impose imprisonment of 1 year and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC.