AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this case, the petitioner is A-1, A-2 was acquitted and it has become final. The petitioner was convicted u/s 353, I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for six months.
The gravamen of the charge made against the petitioner is that P.W. 1, the Sub-Inspector of Police while investigating into Crime No. 48-X-67/81 came across the petitioner who was driving the car No. AAV 1677, and asked him to stop. Though the petitioner made an ostensible attempt for stopping the car he fled away by driving the car with speed causing hit to the left-mudguard of the motor cycle on which P.W. 1 was sitting P.W. 2 was on the pillion. For this charge, it was found, that the petitioner has used criminal force against P.W. 1 who is a public servant while deterring him in discharging of his public duty in investigating into a crime. The facts stated in the case do not bring out an offence of assault on a public servant or using criminal force so as to deter him from discharging his duties as public servant. It is the duty of the prosecution to bring home the essential ingredients of the offence charged for. But from the evidence on record, the prosecution did not establish the essential ingredient of using criminal force or assault on the public servant deterring him from discharge of his duties. This factor was not considered by the courts below in a proper perspective. Therefore I am constrained to interfere with the finding in revision. Accordingly. I allow the revision, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
Revision allowed.