The Supreme Court of India acquitted a man 17 years after his conviction for assault and criminal force against a public servant, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in upholding strict standards of proof and protecting individual rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India overturned a conviction from 17 years ago, acquitting a man previously found guilty of assault and the use of criminal force against a public servant. This decision highlights the rigorous standards of proof required in criminal law and reiterates the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual rights against wrongful convictions.
The case centered around an individual, a patwari by profession, who was convicted in 2009 by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The charges against him were serious, under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to “assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from the discharge of his duty.” The original ruling was that the patwari had physically obstructed law enforcement during their official duties.
However, upon review, the Supreme Court, led by Justice BR Gavai, found critical discrepancies in the evidence presented. The bench noted that the incident involved merely some jostling and pushing, which occurred as the appellant tried to avoid arrest—a scenario far removed from the deliberate act of assault or use of criminal force as defined under the IPC.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Threatens to Cancel Bail of Maharashtra Politician Sopan Gade Over Grand Celebration
The court’s findings were clear and pointed to a significant lack of evidence regarding any intentional use of force. Moreover, there was no evidence that the accused used any hard or blunt objects during the incident or that there was any intent to obstruct the officials in their duties.
The ruling stated-
“In summary, the elements required to establish an offense under Section 353 are not met. The accused’s actions of jostling and pushing, as evidenced, were not intended to use or actually use criminal force.”
This clarification by the Supreme Court sheds light on the nuanced interpretation of what constitutes criminal force or assault against a public servant.
This acquittal raises important questions about the mechanisms of justice and the protection of civil liberties. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the conviction after nearly two decades emphasizes the necessity for a faultless legal process and the importance of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt to uphold a conviction.
