Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 186 & 353—Obstructing or assaulting to deter public servant from discharging of his public duty—Proof—To prove the offences punishable under Sections 186/353 IPC, one of the primary requirements to be proved by the prosecution is that there was obstruction or assault while the public servant/official was discharging his public functions—Since the prosecution failed to discharge its onus of proving that the victim ASI was on official duty at the relevant time when he was assaulted, the view expressed by the Trial Court in acquitting all the accused for offences punishable under Sections 186/353 IPC is a reasonable view on the evidence led by the prosecution on the facts of the case and cannot be said to be termed as a perverse view warranting interference.
[Para 6]
Section 307—Attempt to murder—Appeal against acquittal—Case of prosecution that co-accused was apprehended at the spot and respondents were apprehended at the instance of co-accused—There are serious discrepancies with regard to their time of arrest and the signing of the arrest memos—No merit found in the appeal filed by the State seeking conviction of the other three respondents for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC—Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 7 & 8]
Section 307—Attempt to murder—Conviction—Even though the prosecution has not examined the juice vendor to prove the genesis of occurrence, however, from the cogent and convincing testimony of ASI to the extent that he was inflicted injury by piece of brick by appellant who was apprehended by him at the spot and immediately thereafter, he was taken to the hospital where his MLC was prepared, cannot be doubted—To prove an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC to have been committed, the prosecution is required to prove the intention with which injury was inflicted which can also be deciphered from the nature of injury—Piece of brick has been hit near the ear of victim—Even though prosecution has not been able to prove that he was on official duty at the same time, however, the injury as caused to the said victim has been proved—Not a fit case to modify the conviction of appellant from offence punishable under Section 307 IPC to a lesser offence—Since the appellant has already undergone sentence of more than 5 years including remissions, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, his sentence is modified to the period already undergone.
[Paras 10, 15 & 17]