Tripura High Court

High Court Of Tripura vs The State Of Tripura on 7 April, 2021

                                   Page - 1 of 20



                          HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                AGARTALA
                            Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017
Sundar Ali,
Son of Md. Sadat Ali,
Of Vill-Irani, P.S-Irani,
Kailashahar, Unakoti

                                                      ............... Petitioner(s).

                                        Versus
The State of Tripura,
(To be represented by the Public Prosecutor,
Hon‟ble High Court of Tripura, Agartala,
West Tripura).

                                                    ............... Respondent(s).

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. N. Majumder, Sr. Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

       Date of hearing              :     22nd January, 2021.

       Date of Judgment & Order :        7th April, 2021.

       Whether fit for reporting    :    NO.


                            JUDGMENT AND ORDER

[1]            Heard Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for

the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State respondent.

[2] This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section

397 read with Section 401, Cr. P.C against the judgment dated 4.8.2017

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 2 of 20

delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 13(4) of 2016 by Sessions Judge,

Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar, affirming the judgment and order of

conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Kailashahar, in case No. PRC 68 of 2014 whereby the trial Court

sentenced the petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and

fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for commission of offence

punishable under Section 332 IPC and further sentenced him to S.I for

one year with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for having

committed offence punishable under Section 353 IPC directing that both

the sentences would run concurrently. The appellate Court by the

impugned judgment has affirmed the said judgment and order of

conviction and sentence which has been challenged by means of this

petition.

[3] The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the written

ejahar (FIR) filed by one Nandalal Deb, Branch Manager of Tripura

Gramin Bank, Tillabazar Branch at Irani police station in Unakoti Judicial

District on 25.04.2014 informing the Officer-in-Charge, Irani police

station that at about 2 pm on 25.4.2014 Smt. Sofia Begam, a resident of

the area came to the bank and met the said Branch Manager to know

about the procedure of getting a loan from bank. She left the bank after

having discussion with the informant on the issue. About half an hour

thereafter she came back with one Sundar Ali who asked the informant

Branch Manager to sanction a loan in favour of Smt. Sofia Begam

immediately and during altercation with the informant, said Sundar Ali

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 3 of 20

physically assaulted him and ransacked the computer and files in his

chamber.

[4] Based on the said written ejahar, Irani PS case No.15 of 2014

under sections 332,353,379 and 506 IPC was registered and the case was

taken up for investigation. After the investigation was complete, charge

sheet for commission of offence punishable under Sections 332, 353, 506

IPC was filed against the petitioner vide charge sheet No.05 of 2014

dated 31.5.2014. After the charge sheet was received, case was made

over to the trial Court by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kailashahar vide

order dated 06.06.2014. The trial Court after taking cognizance, framed

charges of offence punishable under Sections 332, 353 and 506 IPC

against the petitioner. The charges which have been framed by the trial

Court against the petitioner are as under:

―That you on 25.04.2014 at about 1430 hours you slapped the complainant of the instant case namely Sri Nandalal Deb, the then Branch Manager of Tripura Grameen Bank, Tillabazar within the jurisdiction of Irani PS and you thus voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant who is a public servant to deter him from his duty and you also assaulted and used criminal force on him to deter him from discharge of his duty besides threatening him with dire consequences.

For your above acts and conduct you have committed offences punishable under sections 332/353/506 of the India Peal Code and within the cognizance of the Court.

Do you plead guilty.‖

Petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

[5] In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced

as many as seven witnesses including the informant Branch Manager of

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 4 of 20

the Bank (PW-3), Md. Jamal Uddin (PW-2) who is an employee of the

bank, Mst. Saida Begum (PW-1) who is also an employee of the bank,

Md. Litan Jaman (PW-4) a customer of the bank, Md. Taiyabur Rahman

(PW-5) an employee of the bank, Md. Iqbaluzzaman (PW-6) a customer

of the bank and SI, Jayanta Das (PW-7) the Investigating Officer of the

case.

[6] The prosecution also introduced several documents including

the written ezahar, hand sketch map, its index etc. which were exhibited

in the course of trial and marked as Exbt.1 - Exbt.5/1. After the recording

of prosecution evidence was over, petitioner was examined under Section

313 Cr.P.C who pleaded innocence and claimed that the charges were

foisted on him. For his defence, three witnesses were examined as DW-1,

DW-2 and DW-3. All of whom were the customers of the said bank and at

the material time they went to the bank to collect MGNREGA payment.

[7] After appreciation of evidence, the trial Court returned the

finding of conviction holding as under:

―On a careful study of the entire evidence on record discussed above I find that the fact in issue has been proved by the direct evidence of the complainant-cum-victim Nanda Lal Deb (PW 3) to the effect that the accused had slapped him inside his official chambers which is corroborated in all material particulars by the two eye witnesses namely PW 1 Saida Begum and PW 2 Jamal Uddin who deposed that they saw the accused slapping the complainant from close quarters.

Section 155 of the Evidence Act lays down the procedure for impeaching the credit of a witness in the following words :-

―The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party,

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 5 of 20

or , with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him-

(1) by the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit;

(2) by proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence ;

(3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted;‖

Keeping this above provision of law in mind I have carefully scanned the cross-examination of the complainant-cum-victim(PW 3) Nanda Lal Deb and the two eye witnesses Saida Begum(PW 1) and Jamal Uddin (PW 2) and I find that the defence has hopelessly failed to impeach the credibility of any of them through any of the modes mandated U/S 155 of the Evidence Act quoted above and I find no reason to disbelieve their testimony which successfully withstood the test of cross-examination. Moreover there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the complainant-cum-victim Nanda Lal Deb(PW 3) and the eye witnesses Saida Begum(PW 1) and Jamal Uddin (PW 2) had any previous enmity with the accused Sundar Ali which would have instigated them to depose against him falsely. It is also significant to note that the incident had occurred on 25.04.2014 at about 2.30 pm and the written complaint was filed by the complainant promptly within two hours which also rules out the chance of exaggeration or false implication of the accused person. The prosecution case is also bolstered by the testimony of PW 4 Litan Jaman only to the extent that on the alleged date and time of the incident he saw the official computer which was inside the chambers of the Branch Manager on the floor and all the files being scattered and also that he saw the accused inside the chambers of the Branch Manager. However the testimony of PW 4 to the effect that the Branch Manager Nanda Lal Deb had told him after he rushed to the spot of incident that the accused Sundar Ali had slapped him is disregarded by this Court for the simple reason that the complainant Nanda Lal Deb (PW 3) had not mentioned in his deposition that he had told PW 4 Litan Jaman that the accused Sundar Ali had slapped him.

Thus what emerges in the above discussion is that on the alleged date and time the accused Sundar Ali had slapped the complainant Nanda Lal Deb(PW 3) and thus used criminal force on him

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 6 of 20

causing hurt and since the entire incident had occurred regarding the disbursement of loan to Sufia Begum by the complainant in his official capacity as Branch Manager of Tripura Gramin Bank, Tillabazaar Branch it is crystal clear that such attack on the complainant was with the intent to deter him from discharge of his official duty. The final point that this Court needs to decide is whether the complainant-cum-victim was a public servant on the date of incident which would attract the offence U/Ss 332/353 of Indian Penal Code against the accused person.‖

[8] Thereafter the trial Court discussed the provision of Section

21 IPC and held that the Branch Manager of Tripura Gramin Bank was a

public servant within the meaning of Section 21 IPC and came to the

conclusion that the petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to deter the

Manager of the bank (PW-3) from discharging his duty as a public servant

for which the trial Court convicted him for offence punishable under

Sections 332 and 353 IPC. The trial Court condemned the conduct of the

petitioner and viewed that in view of his condemnable conduct he was not

entitled to be released under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. After

hearing him on the question of sentence, the trial Court sentenced the

petitioner separately under Sections 332 and 353 IPC.

[9] In appeal the learned Sessions Judge re-assessed the entire

evidence and considered the whole facts and circumstances of the case

and by a detailed judgment he held that there was no infirmity in the

judgment of the trial Court and therefore, the appellate Court upheld the

conviction and sentence of the petitioner by holding as under:

―19. Thus, from a juxtaposed reading of the evidence on record it becomes clear that on the

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 7 of 20

alleged date and time the accused Sundar Ali slapped the complainant Nanda Lal Deb and thus used criminal force on him causing hurt and since the entire incident happened on the issue of disbursement of loan to Sufia Begum by the complainant in his official capacity as Branch Manager of the bank it is crystal clear that such attack on the complainant actually deterred him from discharge of his official duty and thereby brought the accused within the rigours of the penal provisions of section 332 and 353 of the IPC.

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that all the prosecution witnesses are Bank employees belonging to the fraternity of the complainant and there is no independent witness in support of the prosecution case. But in view of the fact that the incident happened in the premises of the bank during office hours, it is only natural that the employees of the bank would be the persons in the first place to become witnesses of the case. Hence I find no justification in the argument of Ld. counsel for the appellant on this score. Also it is seen in the evidence of the IO Pw 7 that on being asked by the court he told that he did not cite any public witness as none of them was ready to depose. That being the position there is no reason not to believe the employee witnesses just because they happen to be the employees of the bank.

20. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the Pw 1 and 2 are the pet witnesses of the complainant being subordinate staff, I find that the trial court has rightly mentioned that it is well settled by now by a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that interested witnesses are those witnesses who have animus against the accused person which would instigate them to depose falsely. In the case at hand there is nothing on record to indicate that PW 1 and PW 2 had any previous enmity with the accused person which instigated them to implicate him falsely and the mere fact that they are subordinate staff of the complainant-cum-victim cannot be a ground to discard their testimony more so as they successfully withstood the test of cross examination. In fact the PW 1 & 2 are the most natural witnesses in the instant case as they worked in the close vicinity of the chamber of the complainant-cum-victim where the incident occurred.

21. As regards the minor inconsistency and discrepancy between Pw 1 and 2 as to who the loanee Sufia Begam was accompanied with, as argued by Ld. Counsel for the appellant, this

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 8 of 20

inconsistency between the testimony of PW 1 & 2 is found to be trivial in nature and does not have any cascading effect on the basic worth of the evidence of the said Pws in so far as they have vouchsafed about the fact of assault on the victim Branch Manager of the Bank by the accused person. This kind of minor inconsistency does not strike at the root of the prosecution case.

22. So far as the question of probation is concerned, it needs to be noted that the convict has manhandled and caused hurt to the unwary and defenceless victim who is a public servant, inside his official chamber and that too during the office hours and also without any provocation from the side of the victim. This speaks volume about the extent of rowdism and lack of fear of law that the convict could indulge in. As such I am of the opinion that Ld. Trial court has rightly held that such reprehensible criminal conduct of the convict should not be shielded by the beneficial provisions of PO Act. Release of this kind of rogue under the beneficial provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 would indeed send a wrong message to the society that even after attacking a public servant in his office chamber one can get away from the tentacles of the law.

23. In view of the clear and convincing evidence rendered by the complainant-cum-victim Pw 3 and corroborated in material particulars by the rest of the Pws and the defence evidence being not convincing enough to demolish the prosecution version, I am of the view that the conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial court under section 332/353 of the IPC against the appellant is justified and there is no infirmity therein.

24. In the light of the above, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the judgment and order of learned trial court in so far as it has convicted the convict-appellant under section 332/353 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly.‖

[10] Appearing for the petitioner Mr. B. N. Majumder, learned

senior Advocate has contended as follows:

(i) There are serious discrepancies in the evidence of PW-3

who is the most material witness of this case and the Courts

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 9 of 20

below did not take into consideration those discrepancies

appearing in the evidence of PW-3.

(ii) PW-3, the Informant, Branch Manager of the bank

stated in his examination-in-chief that a loan under

Swabalamban bank loan scheme was already sanctioned

tentatively in the name of Mst. Sufia Begum which was

informed to her and she was asked to provide two guarantors

for disbursement of the loan and on the date of occurrence

when Sufia was insisting for disbursement of her loan, the PW

expressed his inability to disburse the loan without

guarantors, but in his cross examination he stated that no

guarantor was required for such Swabalamban loan which

was sponsored by District Industrial Council. Such

discrepancy in the evidence of PW-3 affected the credibility of

his statement and the Courts below ignored this aspect while

appreciating his evidence.

(iii) There is no iota of evidence in support of the fact that

the petitioner physically assaulted the Informant (PW-3).

(iv) It was not appreciated by the Courts below that the

reluctance of the Branch Manager (PW-3) in disbursing loan in

favour of Mst. Sufia Begum, a poor woman, despite the

sanction of the loan generated frustration and discernment in

her which made her raise her voice against the conduct of the

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 10 of 20

Branch Manager (PW-3) and consequently, PW-3 lodged a

false case against the petitioner who stood by said Mst. Sufia

Begum.

(v) There is no eye witness to the occurrence except PW-1

and PW-3 who are interested witnesses and whose evidence

cannot be relied upon due to the discrepancies in their

statements.

(vi) Smt. Sofia Begam who is the most vital witness of this

case has not been examined by the prosecution. Prosecution

alleged that after PW-3 declined to disburse the loan in her

favour, she brought her petitioner-husband who assaulted the

Branch Manager (PW-3). Had it been true, Sufia Begum

should have been made an accused for abating the

commission of the offence which is not also done. It casts

doubt over the prosecution case for which the Courts below

should have disbelieved the case against the accused.

[11] Finally, it is submitted by Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned senior

Advocate that for arguments‟ sake, even if it is assessment that the case

is proved against the petitioner, the trial Court should have released the

petitioner on probation of good conduct under the Probation of Offenders

Act, 1958. In support of his contention, Mr. B. N. Majumder, learned

Advocate has relied on the decision of this High Court in Mithun

Debnath Vrs. State of Tripura, reported in (2014) 2 TLR 922.

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 11 of 20

[12] On behalf of the prosecution, Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence of PW-3 supported by

the consistent and corroborative evidence of other prosecution witnesses

and the facts and circumstances of the case has clearly proved that the

petitioner assaulted the Bank Manager (PW-3) to deter him from

discharging his duty as a public servant for which he was found guilty

and convicted and sentenced by the trial Court which was also up held by

the appellate Court. According to Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of

the Courts below. It is further argued by Mr. Ghosh, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor that in view of the nature and gravity of the offence and

the manner in which it was committed, the learned Courts below rightly

denied benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner. Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, therefore, urges the Court for upholding the

conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

[13] This Court has scrutinised the records afresh and finds that

PW-1, Mst. Saida Begum has supported the allegation against the

petitioner. He stated at the trial that as a temporary employee of the

bank she used to sit at a place adjacent to the chamber of the manager

(PW-3) at an audible distance from the chamber. According to her, she

heard the Branch Manager telling Mst. Sufia Begam that her loan could

not be sanctioned since she applied for the loan after due date. Sofia left

the bank immediately and came back with the accused petitioner namely

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 12 of 20

Sundar Ali. Sundar Ali started arguing with the Manager (PW-3) for

disbursing the loan of MST Sofia Begam. All on a sudden petitioner

Sundar Ali gave a slap to the Manager (PW-3). He had also thrown away

the documents as well as the desktop computer from the table of the

Manager. PW-1 stated that he saw everything with her own eyes.

According to the PW, the petitioner was very much known to her because

he used to visit the bank frequently.

[14] The petitioner tried to impeach her evidence by cross

examination. In cross examination she stated that she was a peon at the

bank and her performance was subject to appraisal by the Branch

Manager (PW-3). She further stated that the petitioner was a member of

the local panchayat and he used to supervise the implementation of the

various beneficial schemes in his capacity as a member of the Panchayat.

She stated that she was not aware about the loan application by Smt.

Sufia Begum. She also stated that there were many other customers in

the bank at the time of the incidence. She denied that she gave false

statement in Court on the instructions of the Branch Manger (PW-3).

[15] PW-2 is Md. Jamal Uddin who was also a contingent worker of

Tripura Gramin Bank at Tillabazar branch. According to the PW he also

used to sit in the bank at a place adjacent to the office chamber of the

Branch Manager (PW-3) from where he had seen that Mst. Sufia Begum

accompanied by her husband came to the bank and met the Branch

Manager. After some time both of them left the bank. After a while they

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 13 of 20

again came to the bank along with petitioner Sundar Ali and met the

Branch Manager (PW-3) in his chamber. The PW heard said Sundar Ali,

petitioner, arguing with the Branch Manager and suddenly he slapped the

Branch Manager (PW-3). The PW further stated that the Branch Manager

used to sit in a cubical encircled by half glass and the inside of the

chamber was visible from outside. The PW along with another employee

of the bank namely Iqbalur Jaman rushed to the chamber to rescue the

Manager (PW-3). He further stated in his examination in Chief that

petitioner Sundar Ali was known to him.

In his cross examination, the PW stated that he was a data

entry operator in the bank and he denied the suggestion of the accused

that he did not witness the accused slapping the Branch Manager.

[16] PW-3, Sri Nandalal Deb, the Branch Manager of the said bank

asserted in his examination in chief that when Sufia Begum came to the

bank at about 2 PM on 25/4/2014 he told her that though the loan was

sanctioned in her name, two guarantors were required for disbursement

of the loan. She kept pleading for sanction of her loan. When the PW told

her that it was not possible to disburse the loan without guarantors, she

left the bank. After half an hour, she came back along with accused

petitioner Sundar Ali. The petitioner demanded disbursement of the loan

in favour of Sufia Begum without any guarantor. PW-3 told him that it

was not possible on his part to disburse the loan without guarantors.

Immediately thereafter the petitioner had thrown away the desk top

computer and other documents from his table and gave a slap to him. His

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 14 of 20

colleague in the bank came to his rescue. After the incidence the PW

lodged the FIR (Exbt.-1) at the police station.

[17] PW-3 was subjected to an incisive cross examination by the

petitioner. In his cross examination he stated that Swabalamban loans

were actually sponsored by District Industrial Council (in short, DIC) for

which no guarantor was actually required. He also admitted in cross that

the loan under the scheme was already sanctioned in favour of Sufia

Begum. He also stated that petitioner Sundar Ali was not known to him

prior to the occurrence and he was not aware as to whether the petitioner

was a member of the local Panchayat. He also denied that he did not pay

any heed to any request of the local Panchayat members with regard to

sanction of loan to the local residents. The PW further stated in cross that

at the time of occurrence, 20/25 customers were present in the bank. He

also denied that prior to the occurrence, petitioner Sundar Ali also met

him to convey the grievances of local people with regard to loan

disbursement.

[18] Md. Litan Jaman is PW-4, who came to the bank at 2.30 pm

on the date of occurrence when he saw petitioner, Sundar Ali and Badsha

Miah entering into the office chamber of Branch Manager (PW-3).

Following a commotion from the chamber of the Manager (PW-3) he went

inside the chamber when PW-3 told him that Sundar Ali slapped him. The

PW also saw the computer and other official papers scattered on the floor

inside the chamber of the Branch Manager. After a while the local people

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 15 of 20

assembled in the bank and started looking for Sundar Ali. Sundar Ali left

the bank by that time. In his cross examination, the PW stated that he

went to the bank for depositing money. He denied the suggestion of the

petitioner that he did not see the petitioner entering into the chamber of

PW-3.

[19] PW-5, Md. Taiyabur Rahaman was also a contingent employee

of the Tillabazar branch of Tripura Gramin Bank. He stated at the trial

that following noise he rushed to the chamber of the Branch

Manager(PW-3) and saw that the Branch Manager was lying on the floor

and the computer and files of his chamber were also lying scattered on

the floor beside the Branch Manager. On his query Badsha Miah who was

also inside the chamber of the Branch Manager (PW-3) told him that

petitioner Sundar Ali slapped the Branch Manager.

In his cross examination the PW denied the suggestion of the

petitioner that he did not see the petitioner in the chamber of the Branch

Manager (PW-3).

[20] PW-6, Md. Iqbaluzzaman was a customer of Tillabazar branch

of Tripura Gramin Bank who went to the bank for collection of payment

on behalf of Laxmipur Gram Panchayat. When he entered into the

chamber of the Branch Manager following a noise, he heard Sundar Ali

arguing with the Branch Manager (PW-3). A woman was also present with

petitioner Sundar Ali at that time. Then the PW intervened and restrained

them from arguing further. Since the PW did not support the prosecution

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 16 of 20

case with regard to the assault of the Branch Manager (PW-3), he was

declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution and he was cross

examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor at the trial. In his cross

examination by the accused, he denied the suggestion of the accused that

he did not go to the bank at that time.

[21] PW-7 is the Investigating Officer of the case who stated that

charges against the accused were established during investigation and

therefore, he submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for

commission of offence punishable under Sections 332, 353 and 506 IPC.

[22] It may be recalled that the accused examined three witnesses

on his behalf. Among them DW-1, Md. Usman Ali had stated that he was

also present at the Bank on 25.04.2014 at 2.30 pm. According to him

only an altercation took place between the Sundar Ali and the Branch

Manager (PW-3). The DW did not see any incidence of physical assault of

the Branch Manager (PW-3) by petitioner, Sundar Ali.

[23] DW-2, Md. Taslim Ali, gave same evidence. The DW stated at

the trial that petitioner, Sundar Ali had an altercation with the Branch

Manager (PW-3) on the issue of payment of loan. Sundar Ali left the bank

thereafter.

[24] Same evidence was given by DW-3 who stated that he had

seen the petitioner, Sundar Ali having altercation with the Branch

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 17 of 20

Manager (PW-3) on the issue of sanction of loan and after a while Sundar

Ali left the Bank.

[25] Before proceeding further it would be apposite to refer to the

relevant penal provisions under which the petitioner has been convicted

and sentenced in the instant case.

[26] Section 332 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing

hurt to deter public servant from his duty which reads as under:

―332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.--Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.‖

[27] Section 353 IPC provides punishment for assault or use of

criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his official duty

which reads as under:

―353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.‖

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 18 of 20

[28] The common basic ingredients of Sections 332 and 353 are

that in both cases the victim must be a public servant and he must be in

the execution of his duty as such public servant at the time of the

commission of the offence to him. Punishment provided for the

commission of offence under Section 332 is graver than the punishment

provided for offence under Section 353 IPC. For offence under Section

332, the convict shall be punished with imprisonment of either description

for a term which may extend 3 (three) years, or with fine or with both

whereas the imprisonment provided under Section 353 may be of either

description for a term which may extend to 2(two) years or with fine or

with both. Commission of "Hurt" is essential to constitute an offence

punishable under Section 332 IPC whereas under Section 353 IPC, it is

not essential that the hurt should be caused to the public servant.

[29] In the present context, allegation against the accused

petitioner is that while the Branch Manager of the said branch of Tripura

Gramin Bank was in execution of his duty in office chamber, the accused

petitioner had a hot altercation with him on the issue of disbursement of

loan to a woman and in the course of such altercation he slapped the

Branch Manager.

[30] There is no denial of the fact that the victim being a Branch

Manager of Tripura Gramin Bank would be squarely covered by the

definition of "public servant" provided under Section 21 of the Indian

Penal Code in Sub Section (b) of the Twelfth Clause. There is no evidence

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 19 of 20

of any kind of provocation caused to the accused petitioner from the side

of the victim for commission of the offence. Prosecution has led

consistent and coherent evidence that the said Branch Manager (PW-3)

told Sufia Begum who applied for a loan as well as the accused that it was

not possible to give the loan to Sufia Begum without guarantor. At that

moment agitated accused slapped the Branch Manager and threw away

the desk top computer and files from the table of the Branch Manager.

Slapping is squarely covered within the definition of „Hurt‟ provided under

Section 319 IPC which provides as follows:

―319. Hurt - Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.‖

There is no doubt that by giving a slap to PW-3, the accused

caused bodily pain to him and thereby caused „hurt‟ to PW-3 within the

meaning of Section 319, IPC.

[31] From the facts and circumstances of the case and the

evidence discussed above, it can be safely held that the accused

petitioner committed offence punishable under Sections 332 and 353 IPC

by causing such hurt to PW-3 who was in the execution of his duty as a

public servant in Tripura Gramin Bank as its Branch Manager. The Courts

below rightly held the accused petitioner guilty for commission of the said

offence and there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of

the Courts below in so far as the conviction of the accused is concerned.

With a view to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,

sentence of imprisonment is reduced to SI for 3(three) months for

Crl. Rev. P No.59/2017.

Page - 20 of 20