Absence of corroborative evidence and failure to identify accused precludes conviction for assaulting a public servant.

The State appealed against a judgment dated 01.11.2014 by the Additional Sessions Court, Patiala House, which acquitted the respondents (A1 and A2).

The prosecution alleged that on 26.06.2003, a mob of approximately 20 persons led by the respondents entered the office of PW1 (a Chief Engineer in the CPWD), assaulted him, and damaged office property to deter him from discharging his official duties.

Following a complaint by PW1 [Ext. PW1/A] and a statutory complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. [Ext. PW8/A], the trial court originally convicted the respondents under Sections 186, 353, and 34 of the IPC.

However, the first appellate court reversed this finding, leading to the present appeal by the State.

Whether the prosecution established the ingredients of assault and criminal force under Sections 186 and 353 of the IPC beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether there was any legal infirmity in the appellate court’s judgment of acquittal that warranted interference by the High Court.

The court applied Section 353 of the IPC (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) and Section 186 of the IPC (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) read with Section 34 (Common intention).

The court also relied on the evidentiary principle that while a conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole witness if found reliable, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by establishing the identity and specific roles of the accused.

The High Court observed that the prosecution's case rested primarily on the testimony of PW1, which remained uncorroborated by other key witnesses.

Although PW1 alleged a violent assault and damage to property, other prosecution witnesses (PW3, PW5, and PW6) failed to support these claims.

PW3 denied seeing any damage or manhandling.

While PW5 and PW6 saw broken items after the fact, they did not witness the underlying assault.

Crucially, PW3, PW5, and PW6—all of whom were present at the scene or shortly thereafter—failed to identify A1 and A2 in court as members of the mob.

The court noted that the testimony of PW1 alone, in light of the failure of other witnesses to identify the accused or confirm the specific acts of violence, was insufficient to sustain a conviction.

The court found no perversity or infirmity in the appellate court’s decision to acquit the respondents.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittal of Om Prakash and the co-respondent.