Court finds prosecution evidence insufficient; emphasizes need for proper authorization in public duty cases
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has overturned the conviction of Rajendra Kumar, a conductor with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC), accused of assaulting traffic inspectors while they were allegedly performing their official duties. The court, presided over by Justice Avnish Saxena, found that the prosecution failed to establish the essential prerequisites for convicting Kumar under Sections 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertain to causing hurt and grievous hurt to deter public servants from their duties.
The case arose from an incident on August 6, 1981, when three traffic inspectors—Attar Singh, Nathu Ram, and Budhi Mal—accused Kumar of assaulting them during a routine inspection. The trial court had found Kumar guilty, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment. However, the High Court highlighted several inconsistencies and a lack of proper authorization for the inspectors to conduct such inspections.
Justice Saxena noted that the prosecution did not provide evidence that the traffic inspectors were authorized to perform the inspection under the applicable U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Rules, 1972. The court emphasized that proving such authorization is crucial in cases where public servants claim to be discharging their duties.
The court also found discrepancies between the medico-legal evidence and the inspectors' testimonies. The injuries, including the loss of teeth by Nathu Ram, were attributed to a fall rather than an assault. The High Court criticized the trial court's approach, stating it failed to appreciate the necessity of authorization and the inconsistencies in the evidence presented.
Additionally, the court pointed out procedural lapses in handling cross cases and emphasized that judgments in such cases must be decided separately, without one influencing the other, as per Supreme Court guidelines.
In his defense, Kumar argued that he had been falsely implicated by the inspectors, who allegedly acted improperly during the inspection, leading to unrest among passengers. The High Court found merit in the defense's argument, noting that the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt warranted an acquittal.
The judgment underscores the importance of proving official authorization and the proper discharge of duties in cases involving allegations against public servants. It also reinforces the appellate court's role in ensuring convictions are based on incontrovertible evidence.
The court concluded by setting aside the trial court's judgment and acquitting Rajendra Kumar, directing that the case records be returned with the judgment copy.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Sections 332 and 333 IPC set aside due to improper appreciation of evidence and failure to prove essential prerequisites for conviction.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code Sections 332, 333, 353, 426, 506; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Rules, 1972; CrPC Section 313
Rajendra Kumar v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2864765
