Court’s Decision: The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the conviction of the accused (No. 2) for obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his duty under Section 332 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictory and unreliable testimonies of the witnesses. As a result, the accused was acquitted, extending the same benefit of doubt that was granted to co-accused Nos. 1 and 3.
Facts: The case revolved around an incident where officers from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) raided a shop selling unauthorized slaughtered meat without a license. The accused was alleged to have obstructed the officials and assaulted a marketing inspector (PW-2) by delivering a fist blow to his lip. The prosecution led evidence of four witnesses who were all employees of the Corporation and present during the raid.
Issues:
- Whether the accused obstructed a public servant from carrying out his duty.
- Whether the prosecution established the foundational facts for seizing unauthorized meat and convicting the accused based on eyewitness testimonies.
Petitioner’s Arguments: The defense argued that the prosecution’s case was based on unreliable evidence. It was contended that the Corporation’s employees sought illegal gratification from the accused, and when he refused, they attempted to seize the meat. The defense highlighted contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding who inflicted the fist blow and questioned the credibility of their statements.
Respondent’s Arguments: The prosecution maintained that the accused obstructed the public servants in their duties and assaulted PW-2. They emphasized that the testimonies of at least two witnesses were consistent in identifying the accused as the perpetrator of the assault, and the injury sustained by PW-2 was supported by medical evidence.
Analysis of the Law: The court analyzed Section 332 of the IPC, which deals with voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty. The law requires the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally obstructed or caused harm to the public servant in the course of his duty. In this case, the court found significant discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
Precedent Analysis: The court referred to the principle from Vedivelu Thevar v. State of Madras regarding the classification of witnesses as wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or neither. The court also cited Ram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that when the prosecution witnesses fall into the category of wholly unreliable, their testimonies should be discarded.
Court’s Reasoning: The court noted several contradictions in the prosecution’s case:
- The witnesses gave conflicting accounts regarding the identity of the assailant and the nature of the injury.
- The Investigating Officer failed to conduct a spot panchnama, and there was no seizure of the alleged unauthorized meat.
- The court observed that the injury could have been caused by factors other than the accused’s actions, such as PW-2’s fall during the incident. Given these discrepancies, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion: The conviction of the accused (No. 2) was set aside, and he was acquitted. The court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution was unreliable and contradictory, thereby extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Implications: This judgment underscores the importance of reliable and consistent witness testimony in criminal cases, especially when public servants are involved. It also highlights the necessity for proper investigation, including the preparation of panchnamas, to substantiate charges under the IPC.
