Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This appeal is filed by the accused in Sessions Case 72/1995 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Wayanad. The allegation against the appellant was that he committed the offences under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is stated that on 9.1.1995 at about 2 p.m. appellant used criminal force by catching hold of the uniform of PW.2 Gopalan, a public servant with intent to prevent or deter him from the execution of his official duty and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. There was also allegation that the appellant intentionally insulted and humiliated PW.2 within public view by calling him 'Kurichian' and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentenced him under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The sentences awarded by the learned Sessions Judge were maximum sentences that could be awarded under the above provisions. Further there was direction that the sentences had to run consecutively. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence this appeal had been filed.

2. PW.2 gave Ext.P3 first information to PW.6, the Head Constable of Police, Thirunelly Police Station. On the basis of Ext.P3 first information Crime 1/1995 was registered in the above police station against the appellant and investigation of the crime was conducted by PW.10, the Sub Inspector of Police. PW.11; the Circle Inspector of Police verified the records of investigation and filed final report in court.

3. The trial Court mainly relied on the evidence of PW.2, PW.4 and PW.7 to come to the conclusion that the appellant committed the offences punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In respect of the finding that the appellant committed the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Sessions Judge said that when the appellant caught hold of the uniform of PW.2 and humiliated him by mentioning his caste be was on official duty. The learned Sessions Judge says that a forest guard who is going from his quarters in uniform has to be considered to be on duty. The evidence of PW.2 was that the occurrence took place near the Forest Check Post, Tholpetty and that he reached near the Check Post when he was going to do his official duty. His version is that he was going from his quarters to the place where he had to discharge his duties as a public servant. The version of PW.2 is that when he reached the Check Post the appellant was sitting near the check post and on seeing him the appellant went near him and caught hold of his uniform and insulted him by mentioning his caste. PW.4 was a forester on duty in the Check Post and he was examined to prove the occurrence. His version is also that at a place near the Check Post appellant caught hold of the uniform of PW.2 and humiliated him by mentioning his caste. Version of PW.7 is that he was going along with PW.2 and he was also on uniform. This witness was working as a Forest Guard in Wildlife Range, Tholpetty at the time when the occurrence took place. This witness also said that when they reached near the Check Post the appellant was there and he caught hold of the uniform of PW.2 and humiliated him by mentioning his caste.

5. Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant is punishable as stated in that section. PW.2 is a public servant but at the time when the occurrence took place near the Check Post, Tholpetty he was not in the execution of his duty as such public servant. In order to attract Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be proved that the person who was assaulted or against whom criminal force was used was in execution of his duty as such public servant. So, even if the evidence of the witnesses is accepted as true, it is not at all possible to say that the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code was committed since even as per the statements made by PW.2 and PW.7, PW.2 was not discharging any official duty as a public servant at the place where the occurrence took place.

6. The evidence is that PW.2 was going from his quarters to the place where he had to discharge his official duty. He was in uniform. A person, who is going from his residence to the place where he has to attend to public duties, cannot be said to be on duty. He can be said to be in execution of public duty only when he reaches the place where he has to perform his duties and he engages himself in discharge of his public duties.

7. In Richard Saldana and Ors. v. State (AIR 1960 Kerala 200) this Court had the occasion to consider the question whether a person who is going for attending his duty can be said to be on official duty. In the above decision it was held that travelling as such was riot part of his duty even though in order to attend to such duty he had to do some travelling. In the above decision this Court said that Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code can apply only when the public servant is discharging the duty imposed on him by virtue of his office and he must be performing an act which is so integrally connected with the duty attached to his office as to form part of it. Travelling to the place of duty was not treated as something done in discharge of official duty. So, the finding by the trial Court that the appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code can be found to be not correct for the reason that even if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is accepted as such, Section 353 is not at all attracted.