The Allahabad High Court has set aside the conviction of a UPSRTC bus conductor accused of assaulting traffic inspectors, ruling that the prosecution must prove the public servant was acting in the “lawful discharge of official duty” to sustain a conviction under Sections 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Avnish Saxena held that the mere status of a victim as a public servant is insufficient if the authority to perform the specific act—in this case, inspecting a bus—is not established.
Background of the Case
The incident dates back to August 6, 1981, involving a Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) bus plying from Saharanpur to Haridwar. According to the prosecution, three Traffic Inspectors—Attar Singh, Nathu Ram, and Budhi Mal—stopped the bus near Roorkee for a surprise inspection. It was alleged that during the verification of the way-bill and passenger tickets, the conductor, Rajendra Kumar (the appellant), became abusive and instigated passengers.
The prosecution further alleged that the appellant struck Traffic Inspector Nathu Ram with two fist blows, resulting in the loss of two teeth, and assaulted the other two inspectors. An FIR was subsequently lodged at Police Station Roorkee under Sections 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty) and 333 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty) of the IPC. On October 23, 1986, the Trial Court convicted Rajendra Kumar, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of two and three years for the respective offences.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the inspectors were authorized to conduct the check on that specific route. It was contended that the inspectors had no “checking dispatch” or written authorization, rendering their entry into the bus unauthorized. Furthermore, the defense pointed toward a “cross-case” where the conductor had also sustained injuries, suggesting the inspectors were the aggressors.
The learned A.G.A. for the State supported the Trial Court’s judgment, arguing that the victims were admittedly public servants and the medical evidence supported the claim of grievous hurt (loss of teeth), thus satisfying the ingredients of Sections 332 and 333 IPC.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court meticulously examined the legal requirements for Sections 332 and 333 IPC. The Court observed that for a conviction, the prosecution must establish that the victim was a public servant and was “discharging his duty as such public servant” at the time of the incident.
On Lawful Discharge of Duty: The Court noted that while both parties were UPSRTC employees, the prosecution failed to produce any document or “checking dispatch” authorizing the inspectors to board that specific bus. The Court observed:
“What authorizes the informants to enter into the bus for checking has not been proved by the prosecution, which is an essential prerequisite for recording conviction under Sections 332 and 333 IPC.”
On Medical Inconsistencies: The Court highlighted significant discrepancies between the ocular testimony and the medical report. While the inspectors claimed the loss of teeth was due to fist blows, the medical officer admitted during cross-examination that such an injury could occur if a person fell while running. The Court remarked:
“The medical and ocular testimonies are inconsistent in nature… swelling would normally occur in case of fist blows,” yet no swelling was recorded in the medical report.
On Delay and Unreliable Evidence: The Court also took note of the delay in lodging the FIR. Despite a police station being nearby, the inspectors waited for several hours. Citing the Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), the Court emphasized that where two views are possible, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held:
“The prosecution has failed to prove that the public servants were discharging their official duty as such.”
Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated October 23, 1986, was set aside, and the appellant, Rajendra Kumar, was acquitted of all charges.
Case Details
- Case Title: Rajendra Kumar Versus State of U.P.
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2868 of 1986
- Judge: Justice Avnish Saxena
- Date: March 11, 2026
