‘Offence against public servants serious’: Bombay High Court upholds conviction of duo who assaulted official

“The offences committed against a public servant are serious offences committed by both the appellants. One year’s quantum of punishment along with a fine of Rs 10,000 for the offence punishable under Section 332 of the IPC (voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant) is a just and proper sentence, and no interference is warranted in it,” the May 6 order read.

‘Specific evidence’

• The Bombay High Court found that there was specific evidence of assaulting a public servant while he was discharging duty against these three accused persons.
• It, therefore, pointed out that the overt act of all the accused is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
• There is no substance in the grounds of objections in the appeals to warrant interference and to set aside the previous judgment of the trial court, the Bombay High Court noted.
• It dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction awarded by the trial court.
• It noted that most of the witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case.
• The Bombay High Court directed the issuance of a conviction warrant against the accused Devanand.
• It also held that certain unsustainable observations made by the trial court regarding past criminal cases against one accused did not affect the validity of the conviction.

2007 incident

The case involves Dr Pankaj Jawale, who belongs to the Mahar caste, and was serving as the chief officer of the municipal council, Osmanabad (now Dharashiv).

On May 15, 2007, at about 4.45 pm, a family member of one Yuvraj Patil approached him to obtain a death certificate for Vijaykumar Patil. During this time, accused Devanand Rochkari allegedly entered the officer’s cabin and questioned why the certificate had not been issued.

The prosecution claimed that he abused the officer, made caste-based remarks, and assaulted him inside the office. It was further alleged that the other accused, including Sunil, joined in threatening and assaulting the officer.

The prosecution also claimed that the accused forced the officer to sign a death certificate, certain municipal bills, and two blank cheques.

Following the incident, the officer lodged a First Information Report (FIR) and underwent medical examination, which recorded injuries, including bleeding from the nose and abrasions.

A special court later convicted the accused of assaulting and intentionally insulting a public servant while discharging official duties, though they were acquitted of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The two accused subsequently approached the Bombay High Court, challenging their conviction, while the third accused did not prefer to move an appeal.

Arguments

• Appearing for the accused, advocate S V Natu argued that there is no sufficient and reliable evidence to hold that the accused is liable for the offence.
• Natu contended that the treating doctor’s evidence is not reliable, as he admitted that such injuries to the nose are possible due to the summer season and if a hand with a rough surface comes into contact with the nose.
• He added that the officer’s shirt was not produced before the court, and the eyewitnesses had not supported the prosecution’s case.
• On the contrary, Assistant Public Prosecutor S B Jadhav submitted that there is reliable evidence of the chief officer supported by medical evidence.
• He added that even though the other witnesses have not supported the prosecution’s case, the consistent and cogent testimony of the officer cannot be jettisoned.
• Jadhav prayed for the dismissal of the appeal by the Bombay High Court.