In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India acquitted Mahendra Kumar Sonker in the case involving charges under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case, Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2012, was brought before the Court challenging the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, which had upheld Sonker’s conviction and sentence.
The appellant, Mahendra Kumar Sonker, a Patwari posted in Circle No. 89, Village Naryaoli, District Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 500 from Babulal Ahirwar, who had earlier filed a complaint against irregularities in construction work. The prosecution’s case involved a trap set by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Sagar, during which Sonker was alleged to have used criminal force to deter public servants from discharging their duty.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. The appellant, Mahendra Kumar Sonker, was represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, while Mr. Arjun Garg appeared on behalf of the respondent State of Madhya Pradesh.
The original case involved charges against Sonker under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 201 and 353 of the IPC. His wife, Mamta, was also charged under Sections 353 and 201 of the IPC. The trial court acquitted Sonker of the corruption charges but convicted him under Section 353 IPC, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. Mamta Sonker was acquitted of all charges.
Sonker challenged the conviction in the High Court, which was dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues:
The pivotal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence on record substantiated the charge under Section 353 IPC, which penalizes assault or criminal force used against public servants to deter them from discharging their duties.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court, after a thorough examination of the evidence and testimonies, concluded that the essential ingredients to sustain a conviction under Section 353 IPC were not met. The Court noted that while there was an altercation and attempts by Sonker to evade arrest, this did not amount to an intentional assault or use of criminal force as defined under Section 353 IPC. The Court observed that “the jostling and pushing by the accused with an attempt to wriggle out, as is clear from the evidence, was not with any intention to assault or use criminal force.”
Also Read
Justice K.V. Viswanathan, delivering the judgment, highlighted that “none of the ingredients of Section 353 are attracted” and emphasized the distinction between obstruction under Section 186 IPC, which the appellant was not charged with, and the more severe allegations under Section 353 IPC.
The Court also referenced the absence of evidence regarding the use of any hard or blunt object by Sonker, which further weakened the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of both the trial court and the High Court, acquitting Sonker of all charges under Section 353 IPC.
