Brick Attack On Cop: Delhi HC Sets Aside Section 308 Conviction, Upholds Others After Finding Culpable-Homicide Mens Rea Unproved

The prosecution alleged that, on 29 December 2010, the appellant and others assaulted police constables who were investigating the sale of illicit liquor.

The appellant and co-accused Amit were specifically alleged to have struck Constable Ravinder with bricks; Constable Karambir sustained a nasal fracture, while Ravinder’s injuries were opined to be simple.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 186, 332, 333, 353 and 308 read with Section 34 IPC, and imposed concurrent sentences, including six years’ imprisonment under Section 333 and four years and six months under Section 308.

The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence, challenging, among other matters, the evidence, the complaint requirement under Section 195 CrPC, and the finding under Section 308 IPC.

Section 186 IPC penalises obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of public functions; cognizance requires a written complaint by the public servant concerned or an authorised public servant under Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC.

Sections 332 and 333 IPC address voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter a public servant from duty, while Section 353 IPC addresses assault or criminal force used to deter a public servant from duty; Section 34 IPC attributes joint liability where an offence is committed in furtherance of common intention.

Section 308 IPC requires proof of an act done with such intention or knowledge, and in such circumstances, that if death had resulted, the offender would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The Court also applied Section 71 IPC to avoid separate sentencing for the included Section 332 offence, and Section 428 CrPC to allow set-off for custody already undergone.

The Court relied on the consistent testimony of the injured constables, supported by the medical evidence, to find that the appellant participated in obstructing the police and assaulting Ravinder with bricks while the officers were performing their duties; it considered the evidentiary objections insufficient to undermine that account.

It rejected the Section 186 objection because ACP A.K. Lall’s written complaint, Ex. PW-13/A, had been proved.

The Court upheld the Section 333 conviction, treating the grievous nasal fracture suffered by Karambir and the coordinated assault as sufficient to sustain the appellant’s liability with the other accused under Section 34 IPC.

It set aside the Section 308 conviction because, although a brick was used against the head, Ravinder’s injuries were simple and the evidence did not establish repeated blows or other circumstances proving the requisite intention or knowledge; the incident was sudden, with no established premeditation or prior enmity.

The sentence imposed under Section 308, including the fine and default imprisonment, was also set aside; the remaining sentences and their concurrency were maintained, with the appellant entitled to Section 428 CrPC benefit in accordance with law.