Assault or Criminal Force to Deter Public Servant from Discharge of his Duty - Section 353
Public servants are here to help, protect and guide the public on various queries, requests, and complaints. They are duty-bound to serve the public. Public officer risks their lives during their duty. Their actions are for the greater good of the large crowd, therefore, whoever tries to stop them from executing the lawful task is bound to face punitive action against them.Â
The 16th Chapter in the Indian Penal Code lists various acts of criminal force and assault. Section 353 deals with the use of assault or criminal force to deter public servants from the discharge of their duty. The section describes the offence that any person who assaults or uses criminal force on any person who is a public servant in the execution of his duty, or with intent to prevent or deter that public servant from discharging his duty, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done in the lawful discharge of his duty as a public servÂant. For such an offence, the punishment is 2 years or more of imprisonment a fine, or both.
Therefore, this section punishes the lawlessness in the people and disrespect towards the public servant appointed to perform the lawful duty towards the people and state.Â
Consult the best lawyer online now
What is IPC Section 353?
IPC Section 353 describes that obstructing the duty of a public servant with the use of assault and criminal force to stop the public servant from performing his task will be charged with Section 353.Â
The following are the essence/ingredients of the offence under IPC 353:
-
Only a public servant can be the victim.
-
At the time of the assault or use of criminal force, the public servant was on dutyÂ
(a) executing his official duties
(b) the intention of assault or use of criminal force is to deter him from discharging his duty or,
(c) it was in consequence of anything done or an attempt to do the lawful discharge of his duty. Â
Is IPC 353 bailable?
No, the offence is non-bailable. In a non-bailable offense, bail is granted at the magistrate's discretion. The accused can apply for bail under 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers the court and officer in charge to grant bail to the accused at their discretion.
What is the punishment for the IPC 353 Case?
The punishment for IPC 353 is imprisonment up to two years or a fine or both imprisonment and fine. In Maharashtra, detention is up to 5 years if convicted for IPC section 353.Â
Is IPC 353 a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable offence?
Yes, it is a cognizable offence. A cognizable offense is where the police officer can arrest without a warrant and will produce the accused before the magistrate within 24 hours.
How to file/defend your case for IPC 353 offense?
An experienced criminal lawyer can help to draft applications for bail and defend the accused. Contact Lawtendo to get in touch with the criminal lawyer with expertise in cases related to IPC 353.
Supreme court judgment on section 353 IPC
| Case | Judgment |
| State of Gujarat v. Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Patel (2023) 1 SCC 471 | In this case, the Supreme Court held that the offence under Section 353 IPC is not made out if the public servant is not discharging his official duty at the time of the assault or use of criminal force. |
| Pawan Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020) 1 SCC 287 | In this case, the Supreme Court held that the mere intention to deter a public servant from discharging his official duty is not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 353 IPC. There must be an actual assault or use of criminal force. |
| Prakash Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 3 SCC 516 | In this case, the Supreme Court held that the offence under Section 353 IPC is not made out if the public servant is not aware that he is being assaulted or subjected to criminal force. |
| Sandeep Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 11 SCC 659 | In this case, the Supreme Court held that the offence under Section 353 IPC is not made out if the assault or use of criminal force is not directed towards the public servant as such, but towards some other person or property. |
| Rajesh Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 682 | In this case, the Supreme Court held that the offence under Section 353 IPC is not made out if the assault or use of criminal force is committed in self-defence. |
Judicial precedents with regard to IPC 353
In the case of Walmik Vs State of Maharashtra, the accused was arrested for putting the gun on the head of the police officer on duty to prevent the rioting that took place in an inauguration ceremony. The police made 17 arrests but due to lack of proof court had to acquit 2 to 17 of the accused but the appellant was the one who had put the gun on the police officer hence, he was convicted by the session judge for the offense of IPC 307 and IPC 353. However, the High Court acquitted him of both charges. For section 307 the court held that the accused held the gun but did not open the fire hence, cannot be held guilty of the offense as per illustration (C) of section 307 of the IPC. Furthermore, the accused had no ulterior motive to harm the police officer as they had not met each other before this incident. And in the offense of IPC section 353, the court held that because the appellant was acquitted from the other charges of rioting and unlawful assembly, etc. Thus it is not right to charge for IPC 353. The court reversed the conviction and said that the mere act of pointing a gun at the police personnel is not sufficient to punish the appellant.
In the case of Jayaseeli vs State, the accused was tried for offenses under section 353, 294 (b) 427, and 506 (ii) of IPC. However, she was acquitted from the charges of sections 294 and 506(ii) of IPC. She was convicted under sections 353 and 427 of IPC with the punishment of a fine. The fact of the case was that the accused stopped the public servant from performing his duty. The complainant was to survey the land on the instruction of Deputy Tahsildar and the accused used foul language at the surveyor who was doing the work assigned. She tore the settlement book and measuring tape of the complainant and due to which he could not complete the work assigned. And the court read through the definition of section 353 and concluded that the evidence on record and the legal principles of the apex court the ingredients of the section could not be made, because the prosecution could not establish the intention of the accused committing the offense.
Get in touch with the best lawyer now
Therefore, from both the judgment we see that the intention of the accused could not be proved due to which the court had to acquit the accused from the charges of 353. Every criminal act is followed with an intention and when there is no intention it cannot be construed as an offense under IPC to punish the accused.
Section 353 IPC Amendment
In 2017, Maharashtra amended Section 353 IPC to increase punishment and change the court of trial, aiming to address attacks on public servants. However, it raised concerns over potential misuse. The Supreme Court's 2023 judgment clarified the scope, emphasizing actual assault or force to deter public servants. This ensures fair and proportionate application, balancing protection with individual rights.
Difference between section 353 & 186 of IPC
| Section | Description |
| Section 353 | Deals with the offense of assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from the discharge of his duty. |
| Section 186 | Deals with the offense of obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his public functions. |
This blog is written by Ms. Aruna Solomon Zaccheus, LLB.- 3rd Year student, Jitendra Chauhan College of Law
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizance | Bail | Triable By |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assault or Criminal Force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty | Imprisonment, up to 2 years or fine or both | Cognizable | Non- Bailable | Any Magistrate |
| Offence | Assault or Criminal Force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty |
|---|---|
| Punishment | Imprisonment, up to 2 years or fine or both |
| Cognizance | Cognizable |
| Bail | Non- Bailable |
| Triable By | Any Magistrate |
