Notes and Articles for Law students

User Tools

Site Tools


criminal_laws:difference_ipc_332_353_18112020

Difference between the offence under section 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code

[Kerala Judicial Service (Main) Examination, 2016]

Section 332 IPC deals with the offence which is related with where the accused voluntarily caused hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty. It is not necessary to establish that hurt was voluntarily caused to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as a public servant.

On the other hand, if hurt was voluntarily caused to a public servant, while not discharging his duty as a public servant, it is necessary to prove that hurt was caused with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty.

On the other hand, if hurt was voluntarily caused to a public servant, while he was discharging his official duty as such public servant, it is not necessary to establish further that it was so caused with the intention to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant.

On the other hand, even if hurt was caused voluntarily to a public servant, if he was not discharging his duty as a public servant at that time, it is necessary to prove additionally that hurt was caused to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as a public servant.

Section 332 is 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.

Kerala High Court in Rajan v. State of Kerala, on 9 July, 2010 said that the ingredients of an offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code are-

(1) Hurt must have been caused to a public servant and

(2) It must have been caused –

(a) While such public servant was acting in the discharge of his duty as such, or

(b) In order to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty as a public servant or

© In consequence of his having done or attempted to do anything in the lawful discharge of his duty as such a public servant.

Evidence necessary to establish an offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code are:

(a) The accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim (as provided under Section 321 of Indian Penal Code),

(b) The victim of the hurt is a public servant and

© At the time of causing of hurt, the public servant concerned was discharging his duties qua public servant.

An analysis of Section 332 of Indian Penal Code would establish that if prosecution case is that accused voluntarily caused hurt to a public servant while he was discharging his official duty as a public servant, ingredients of an offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code are satisfied.

Assaulting the public servant or using criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant is offence in section 353 IPC which is 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 to 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.

From its bare perusal, it is clear that one commits offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, if he does assault or uses a criminal force to any public servant in the execution of his duty with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharge his duty.

In Akhilesh Kumar & others v. State of Bihar, on 23 August, 2017 Patna High Court said that from plain reading of section 353, the following ingredients are found necessary to constitute the offence-

(a) There should be assault or use of criminal force.

(b) Such force could have been applied on public servant.

© The aforesaid exercise must be while the public servant was acting in execution of his duty or with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty,

(d) In consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by the public servant in due discharge of the duty.

In Durgacharan v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1775 it has been laid down that under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, the ingredients of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary. In Chandrika Sao v. State of Bihar, 1967 Cri. L.J. 261 the Supreme Court has laid down that, mere use of force, however is not enough to bring an Act within the terms of Section 353 IPC.

It has further to be shown that force was used intentionally to any person without that person’s consent in order to commit an offence or with the intention or with the knowledge that the use of force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person against whom the force is used.

Gauhati High Court in Suresh Narayan Roy v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 1978 Cri. L.J. 1514 held that the assault committed on a public servant due to personal grudge would not be covered by the provisions of Section 353 IPC.

Madras High Court in Jayaseeli v. State, on 2 February, 2010 said that the main ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the said charge should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with intent to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. Therefore, the main ingredients of the offence are that the accused should be shown to have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force.


Navigation: Home»Criminal Laws

Created on 2020/11/18 23:37 by Japhin Raj • Last modified on 2020/11/18 23:37 by LawPage