LexMAHENDRA KUMAR SONKER versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 935 : 2024 INSC 600 Mahendra Kumar Sonker v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2012) 12 August 2024 [B.R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellant under s.353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) can be sustained without proving assault and use of criminal force. Headnotes† Indian Penal Code – s.353 IPC – Complaint against appellant filed regarding demand of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification – Trap proceedings organised – Appellant charged for offences under ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with ss.201 and 353 IPC – Special Judge, Sagar convicted appellant for offence u/s.353 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and imposed Rs. 1000/- fine – Appeal dismissed by High Court – Present appeal only concerned with conviction u/s.353 IPC – Allegation regarding charge u/s.353 IPC was that appellant, in collusion with his wife, with an intention to obstruct members of the trap team in performing their pubic duty during trap proceedings, attacked them or exercised criminal force on them: Held: Use of criminal force or assault necessary ingredients of s.353 IPC – Use of force to any person without that person’s consent in order to the committing of any offence required to establish criminal force as defined u/s.350 IPC – Force defined u/s.349 IPC – Assault u/s.351 IPC would mean whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person – On facts – Upon considering oral and medical evidence, prosecution unable to establish that appellant assaulted or used criminal force against trap party – * Author 936 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Attempt was made by appellant to wriggle out when apprehended – Jostling and pushing appears to have happened in process of extricating himself from arrest – None of the ingredients of assault or criminal force attracted – Jostling and pushing by appellant with attempt to wriggle out was not with intention to assault or use of criminal force – No evidence to indicate that accused assaulted or used criminal force on the trap party in execution of their duties or for the purpose of preventing or deterring them in discharging their duties. [Paras 15-18, 28-29] List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. List of Keywords Penal Code, 1860 – s.353; Criminal force; Assault; Intentional use of force; Public servant; Discharge of duty; Trap proceedings. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2012 From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.2009 of the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in CRLA No. 1949 of 2007 Appearances for Parties Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Garima Bajaj, Advs. for the Appellant. Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Ms. Kriti Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment K.V. Viswanathan, J. 1. The present appeal calls in question the judgment dated 14.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1949 of 2007. By the said judgment, the appellant’s conviction under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentence of six months simple [2024] 8 S.C.R. 937 Mahendra Kumar Sonker v. The State of Madhya Pradesh imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed by the Special Judge, Sagar has been confirmed. Aggrieved, the appellant is in Appeal. 2. Originally, the appellant along with his wife Mamta stood trial. While the appellant was charged for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) as well as Sections 201 and 353 of the IPC, his wife Mamta was charged under Section 353 and 201 of the IPC. 3. We are, in this appeal, concerned only with the conviction of the appellant under Section 353 of the IPC. The appellant has been acquitted of other charges and his wife Mamta has been completely acquitted including for the offence under Section 353 of the IPC. Accordingly, only those aspects of the facts which have a bearing on the present appeal are set out hereinbelow. Brief Facts:
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.