1. Background of the Case

• Complainant Sagar Patil, Block Development Officer, relieved Appellant/Punam Aundhakar (Accused No. 2) from duty due to unsatisfactory work.
• Appellant/Datta Dhomane (Accused No. 1), Vice Chairman of Zilla Parishad, visited Sagar Patil’s office along with Punam and allegedly assaulted and threatened him.

2. Charges and Trial Court Findings

• Charges: IPC Sections 353, 323, 506(i), 504, r/w Section 34.
• Convictions:
  • Appellant/Punam: Convicted under Section 186 IPC (obstructing public servant).
  • Appellant/Datta: Convicted under Sections 353 (criminal force), 323 (causing hurt), and 506(i) (criminal intimidation).

3. Key Legal Issues

• Issue 1: Whether conviction under Section 186 IPC was sustainable without framing a specific charge.
• Issue 2: Whether Appellant/Datta’s actions constituted an offence under Sections 353, 323, and 506(i).

4. Judgment and Court Observations

1. For Appellant/Punam (Accused No. 2):

   • Court Ruling:
     • Section 186 IPC (non-cognizable) is not a minor offence of Section 353 IPC (cognizable).
     • No ingredients of Section 186 were proved.
     • Conviction was illegal due to absence of specific charge.
   • Outcome: Acquitted under Section 186 IPC.

2. For Appellant/Datta (Accused No. 1):

   • Section 353 (criminal force): No sufficient proof that Complainant was obstructed in official work.
   • Section 506(i) (intimidation): Contradictions in witness statements weakened prosecution case.
   • Section 323 (causing hurt): Minor scuffle led to Complainant sustaining injuries. Conviction sustained with reduced punishment.
   • Outcome: Conviction under Sections 353 and 506(i) set aside; punishment under Section 323 modified to a fine of ₹1,000.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC):

   • Section 186: Obstructing public servant in discharge of duty (non-cognizable).
   • Section 353: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant (cognizable).
   • Section 323: Voluntarily causing hurt.
   • Section 506(i): Criminal intimidation.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):

   • Section 195: Cognizance of offence under Section 186 IPC requires complaint by a public servant.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Section 186 IPC vs. Section 353 IPC:

   • The two offences are distinct; Section 186 cannot be treated as a minor offence under Section 353 IPC.
   • Absence of a formal charge under Section 186 renders conviction illegal.

2. Insufficiency of Evidence:

   • Prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of Sections 353 and 506(i) due to contradictions in witness statements.
   • Minor scuffle justified punishment under Section 323 IPC but warranted reduction due to lack of severity.

Subjects:

Criminal Law – Assault on Public Servant, Obstruction in Duty.
IPC 186, IPC 353, Section 195 CrPC, Conviction and Acquittal, Evidence Contradictions, Public Servant Assault.

Final Decision:

• Appellant/Punam: Acquitted of charges under Section 186 IPC.
• Appellant/Datta: Conviction under Sections 353 and 506(i) quashed; sentence under Section 323 reduced to a fine of ₹1,000.