Jharkhand HC upholds conviction U/S 353 IPC

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the actual use of criminal force is not a condition precedent to the commission of the offense of assault defined under Section 351 of the IPC, which is punishable under applicable Section 353.

The Court found that the victim’s mere fear of the potential use of criminal force, caused by the defendant’s gestures, was sufficient to constitute a crime.

Bench with Judge Anubha Rawat Choudharypresiding over the case, noted that Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with offenses arising from assault and the use of criminal force. It became clear “Taking into account the basic components of the definition of “assault” contained in Art. 351 of the IPC, the Court considers that if a person enters the office of a public official while he is performing his official duties and abuses him and puts pressure on him to perform a specific task in a specific way, which the public official would otherwise has not agreed, or asks him questions regarding the manner in which he has performed his official duties, thereby preventing him from carrying out his official duties and aggravating the conflict of the situation to such an extent that the government official is forced to call the police to control the situation, an act this is understood as assault within the meaning of Art. 351 of IPC and therefore it is deemed to be an offense under Art. 353 CP.”

“The actual use of criminal force is not a condition precedent to attract the attention of Art. 351 and, consequently, attract the attention of Art. 353 IPC. The fear in the victim’s mind of the use of criminal force caused by the gesture of the accused is sufficient. Such concern is reflected in the victim’s action, reaction and subsequent actions to deal with the situation, and one such action is to call the police to deal with the situation when the public official has failed to convince the accused.” Justice Choudhary added.

The case concerned three people who entered the office of an informant, a government official, and demanded the immediate issuance of a death certificate. One of the accused, DN Choubey, threatened the informant with severe consequences and started abusing him. The other two accused were identified as Banamali Singh Choudhary, former Pramukh of Chas Block and Ramlal Singh.

A case has been registered against the accused under sections 353, 448, 504/34 of the IPC. The trial court convicted them under Sections 353 and 504/34 of the IPC but acquitted them of charges under Section 448 of the IPC. The appellate court upheld the verdict, which resulted in an application for reconsideration of the case being submitted to the High Court.

The Applicant’s representative submitted that there was no eyewitness to the incident and the trial court relied on the testimony of PW-4. It was further stated that no criminal force was used, and the accused was not charged with obstructing the informant in the performance of his official duties.

In response, the State’s counsel asserted that the informant, an executive judge, was performing his duties in his office when the accused entered and committed the crime. Counsel for the State emphasized that in order to invoke Article 353 of the IPC, the existence of criminal force or assault must be demonstrated, and in this case the essential elements were clearly established.

The Court clarified the definition of assault under Section 351 of the IPC, stating: “Whoever makes any gesture or preparation intending or knowing that such gesture or preparation is likely to cause any person present to believe that he who makes the gesture or preparation intends to use criminal force against that person is deemed to be for committing assault under Section 351 of the IPC.”

The Court further explained that a gesture made with the knowledge that it would result in the arrest of a criminal force constitutes assault. Section 353 of the IPC covers both criminal force and assault. The Court added that although words alone do not amount to assault, when combined with gestures or preparations they may give rise to an assault.

The Court found “This review petition calling for any interference with the petitioner’s conviction and sentence has no merit and, therefore, the review petition is dismissed.”

Case Title: Devendra Nath Choubey V. State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 178

Click here to read the judgment