A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This judgment addresses the conviction of Mahendra Kumar Sonker under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The issue revolves around whether the appellant used criminal force or assault to deter public servants from discharging their duties during a trap proceeding organized to catch him allegedly accepting a bribe. The Special Judge convicted the appellant, which the High Court upheld. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court analyzed the ingredients of Sections 349, 350, and 351 IPC, which define force, criminal force, and assault, respectively, to determine whether the essential elements of Section 353 were satisfied. After evaluating the evidence, the Court ruled that mere jostling and pushing without intent did not amount to criminal force or assault, leading to the appellant’s acquittal.

Keywords: Indian Penal Code, Section 353, Criminal Force, Assault, Public Servant, Trap Proceedings

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Mahendra Kumar Sonker v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2012
iii) Judgment Date: 12 August 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: B.R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan*, and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
vi) Author: K.V. Viswanathan, J.
vii) Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 935
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 353, 350, 351, 349
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
  ix) Judgments Overruled: None
  x) Case Related to Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Corruption, and Public Service Accountability

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arises from corruption allegations against Mahendra Kumar Sonker, a Patwari, during a trap organized by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Sagar. The appellant allegedly demanded ₹500 from the complainant, leading to the trap proceedings. During the operation, events occurred that led to his conviction under Section 353 IPC for obstructing the public servants involved. The central question on appeal was whether the prosecution proved the intentional use of criminal force or assault.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellant was accused of demanding ₹500 from Babulal Ahirwar, a complainant, for providing a report.
2. The complainant filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, leading to a trap operation by the Lokayukt team.
3. During the trap, the appellant allegedly threw the bribe money into the dark and resisted arrest, causing jostling.
4. The prosecution claimed that the appellant, with his wife’s assistance, obstructed the officers in discharging their duties.
5. The Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 353 IPC, and the High Court upheld this decision.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the conviction under Section 353 IPC is sustainable without proving assault or the use of criminal force.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellant argued that no evidence demonstrated the intentional use of force or assault, as required under Section 353 IPC.
2. The appellant’s wife, acquitted of similar charges, faced the same factual allegations.
3. The prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Sections 349, 350, and 351 IPC, integral to Section 353 IPC.
4. Minor physical resistance during the arrest does not equate to criminal force or assault.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The State argued that the appellant obstructed public servants and caused injuries to police officers during the trap operation.
2. The evidence demonstrated sufficient physical resistance to constitute criminal force under Section 353 IPC.
3. The conviction was based on concurrent findings of the lower courts.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Ingredients of Section 353 IPC: The Court emphasized the necessity of proving assault or criminal force, as defined under Sections 349-351 IPC.
2. Evaluation of Evidence: The Court observed that the evidence showed mere jostling and an attempt to escape, lacking intent to assault or use criminal force.
3. Medical and Documentary Evidence: The injuries recorded did not conclusively point to criminal force or assault.

b. Obiter Dicta (If Any)

The Court highlighted the procedural safeguards for charging under Section 186 IPC, which the prosecution failed to observe, despite the events potentially falling within its ambit.

c. Guidelines (If Any)

None explicitly mentioned.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must establish all statutory ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. This decision clarifies the application of Sections 349-353 IPC, emphasizing the necessity of proving intent in charges of criminal force or assault.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

• None explicitly referenced in the judgment.

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 349, 350, 351, 353
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)