Reporter:
Last updated:
The court also noted that there was no evidence that the defendants assaulted or used criminal force against the trapping parties in the execution of their duties, or prevented or prevented them from performing their duties. (document)
The judge said: “Having regard to the oral and medical evidence, we can only conclude that the prosecution has not established that the appellant carried out an attack or used criminal force against a trap party.”
The Supreme Court recently quashed a High Court judgment that had convicted a district collector of assault or use of criminal force against a trap party. The court noted that the 2004 incident appeared to have involved only pushing and shoving as the officer tried to avoid arrest.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, KV Vishwanathan and N Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal filed by Mahendra Kumar Sonker. The judge said: “Having regard to the oral and medical evidence, we can only conclude that the prosecution has not established that the appellant carried out an attack or used criminal force against a trap party.”
“Indeed, the facts are that when the appellant was arrested he appeared to attempt to break free and in the process there appeared to be pushing and shoving as he attempted to escape arrest.” No element of assault or criminal force was attracted,” the judge added.
The court also noted that there was no evidence that the defendants assaulted or used criminal force against the trapping parties in the execution of their duties, or prevented or prevented them from performing their duties.
“In summary, none of the elements of Section 353 were attracted. The evidence showed that the defendant pushed and tried to escape without intending to assault or use criminal force.
The bench also noted that interestingly, the officer was not charged under Section 186 of the IPC.
To consider Section 186, the procedure laid down in Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the CrPC should be followed. The court noted that the officer had not even lodged a complaint against the appellant for committing any offense under Section 186 of the IPC.
The appellant, Mahendra Kumar Sonker, challenged the 2009 judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which confirmed Special Judge Sagar’s conviction and six-month jail sentence under IPC Section 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty) .
The appellant and his wife Mamta were tried in the case. He is accused of attacking the trap party with a blunt instrument, causing injuries to the policemen who were trying to arrest him while accepting official bribe of Rs 500 from the complainant. The appellant was charged under Section 7, Section 13(1)(d) (read with Section 13(2)) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Sections 201 and 353 of the ICC His wife Mamta was charged with offense under Section 353 and 201 of IPC.
Both the trial court and the High Court acquitted the appellant of all charges except Section 353 of IPC and his wife was also completely innocent. After examining the evidence in the case, the Supreme Court also acquitted the appellant under Section 353 of IPC.
