Reporter:
Final up to date:
The courtroom additionally famous that there was no proof that the defendants assaulted or used prison pressure in opposition to the trapping events within the execution of their duties, or prevented or prevented them from performing their duties. (doc)
The choose mentioned: “Having regard to the oral and medical proof, we are able to solely conclude that the prosecution has not established that the appellant carried out an assault or used prison pressure in opposition to a lure occasion.”
The Supreme Court docket lately quashed a Excessive Court docket judgment that had convicted a district collector of assault or use of prison pressure in opposition to a lure occasion. The courtroom famous that the 2004 incident appeared to have concerned solely pushing and shoving because the officer tried to keep away from arrest.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, KV Vishwanathan and N Kotiswar Singh allowed the attraction filed by Mahendra Kumar Sonker. The choose mentioned: “Having regard to the oral and medical proof, we are able to solely conclude that the prosecution has not established that the appellant dedicated an assault or used prison pressure in opposition to a lure occasion.”
“Certainly, the information are that when the appellant was arrested he appeared to aim to interrupt free and within the course of there seemed to be pushing and shoving as he tried to flee from arrest.” No component of assault or prison pressure was attracted,” the choose added.
The courtroom additionally famous that there was no proof that the defendants assaulted or used prison pressure in opposition to the trapping events within the execution of their duties, or prevented or prevented them from performing their duties.
“In abstract, not one of the components of part 353 have been attracted. The proof confirmed that the defendant pushed and tried to flee with out desiring to assault or use prison pressure.
The bench additionally famous that apparently, the officer was not charged beneath Part 186 of the IPC.
To think about Part 186, the process laid down in Part 195(1)(a)(i) of the CrPC ought to be adopted. The courtroom famous that the officer had not even lodged a grievance in opposition to the appellant for committing any offense beneath Part 186 of IPC.
The appellant, Mahendra Kumar Sonker, challenged the 2009 judgment of the Madhya Pradesh Excessive Court docket, which confirmed Particular Choose Sagar’s conviction and six-month jail sentence beneath IPC Part 353 (Assault or prison pressure to discourage public servant from discharge of obligation) .
The appellant and his spouse Mamta have been tried within the case. He’s accused of attacking the lure occasion with a blunt instrument, inflicting accidents to the policemen who have been making an attempt to arrest him whereas accepting official bribe of Rs 500 from the complainant. The appellant was charged beneath Part 7, Part 13(1)(d) (learn with Part 13(2)) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Sections 201 and 353 of the ICC His spouse Mamta was charged with offense beneath Part 353 and 201 of IPC.
Each the trial courtroom and the Excessive Court docket acquitted the appellant of all prices besides Part 353 of IPC and his spouse was fully harmless. After inspecting the proof within the case, the Supreme Court docket additionally acquitted the appellant beneath Part 353 of IPC.
