Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: indian penal code section 353 in 3.Title State vs . Kishan @ Lala on 5 August, 2022Matching Fragments
1. The present prosecution case was put into action with the complaint of the complainant, namely Rajneesh Sharma, Jr. Engineer, MCD Office, C12, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi that on 1920.06.2003 at Gamri Road, Pump house, in front of dispensary, accused Kishan @ Lala alongwith other coaccused (not yet arrested) in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed the officials working under Shri Rajneesh Sharma, N.E. MCD office, C12 Yamuna Vihar, Delhi in discharging their public functioning and criminally assaulted State Vs. Kishan @ Lala Page 1 of 14 FIR No. : 233/2003 them and as such committed offences punishable U/s 186/353/34 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.
2. On the basis of the complaint, FIR U/s 186/353/380/34 IPC was registered. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed U/s U/s 186/353/380/34 IPC.
3. On 30.11.2007 the accused was summoned and charged with offences u/s 186/353/34 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and had claimed trial.
4. Prosecution had named total 10 witnesses in the charge sheet, out of which PW 1 is the complainant and the rest of the witnesses were either workers of MCD or the police officials.
Section 353 of IPC provides as under : "Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty : Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such 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 two years, or with fine, or with both."
State Vs. Kishan @ Lala Page 10 of 14 FIR No. : 233/2003
18. Hon'ble Apex Court in a three judge bench case, titled as Durga Charan Naik Vs. State of Orissa 1966 AIR 1775 observed as under : "It is true that most of the allegations in this case upon which the charge under section 353 IPC is based are the same as those constituting the charge under section 186 IPC but it cannot be ignored that section 186 and 353 IPC relate to two distinct offences and while the offences under the latter section is a cognizable offence, the one under the former section is not so. The ingredients of the two offences are also distinct. Section 186 IPC is applicable to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in discharge of his public functions but under section 353 IPC, the ingredient of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary. The quality of the two offences is also different. Section 186 IPC occurs in chapter X of IPC dealing with contempt of lawful authority of public servants, while section 353 IPC occurs in chapter XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body. It is well established that section 195 Cr.P.C. does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same set of facts but which is not within the ambit of that section."