All about Section 332 IPC
All about Section 332 IPC
This article aims to carry out an in-depth analysis of the provisions which are covered under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Introduction
The Indian Constitution guarantees certain rights to every individual. Those who infringe those rights are punished by the Indian Penal Code of 1860. Offenses that cause bodily damage to a person are dealt with in Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 332 Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servants from their duty:
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
It discusses intentionally causing harm to prohibit a public worker from performing his duties.
The clause specifies that any individual who causes voluntary injury or harm to a public servant while doing his or her duties to stop the public servant from fulfilling the function is violating the law.
Harm to the body the disorder caused by a person
For example, if A is a public worker and B is any other individual, and B requests information on the application or whatever, and A does not have the expertise and refuses to provide it. If B causes harm to A, he may be prosecuted under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. If a public official arrives to arrest someone and the individual slaps back or causes pain, the person will be prosecuted under Section 332 of the IPC, 1860. Because the public worker is carrying out his responsibilities.
Essentials Ingredients of Section 332
Section 21 of the Code defines the phrase "public servant".Sections 332 and 333 apply only if the public servant was engaged in the exercise of his duties as a public servant, or if it is proven that the accused intended to impede or dissuade the public servant from fulfilling his duty. The phrase 'in the discharge of his duty as such public servant' refers to a responsibility imposed by law on such public servant in a specific situation and does not include an act done in good faith under the color of his authority.
The responsibility does not have to be to perform a specific act.' Prevention' refers to a stage in which the obligation is being carried out; 'deter' refers to a stage in which it has not yet been carried out." Or any other public servant" signifies that the purpose of the attack or harm must be to checkmate either the victim or another public worker tasked with the same mission and then in the execution of his duties."
Or as a result of something done," in which case the attack would be conducted in reprisal. These lines demonstrate that the offense under the section can be committed not only when a person is assaulted while doing a public duty, but also when he is assaulted as a result of performing his duty.
Explanation of Essentials
Every officer has a commission in the Indian Armed Forces, Naval Forces, and Air Forces. Every Judge, including any person authorized by law to perform adjudicatory functions alone or in groups.
Everyone employed by a Court of Justice to investigate or report on any matter of law or fact, prepare, authenticate, or keep any document, administer or dispose of any oath, interpret, or maintain order in the Court.
Every jury member or panchayat member assists a court or a public worker. Any arbitrator or other individual to whom a Court of Justice or other competent public authority has referred a case or matter for decision or report.
Those in positions of power have the authority to jail or detain others.
Every government official is tasked with preventing, reporting, prosecuting, or protecting public health, safety, or convenience.
Those officers are tasked with taking, receiving, keeping, or expanding government property, conducting surveys or assessments on behalf of the government, executing revenue processes, investigating or reporting matters affecting the government's financial interests, or making, authenticating, or keeping financial records.
Every official whose job it is to seize, receive, hold, or spend property, to survey, assess, or levy any rate, or to make, authenticate, or keep any document to establish the rights of the inhabitants of any village, town, or district.
Any individual who is hired by the government is compensated for doing public obligations.
Any individual hired by a local authority or a corporation founded by or under the auspices of the federal, provincial, or state governments
Punishment under Section 332
The commission of an offense under this provision carries a three-year jail sentence, a fine, or both.
What is the process to file/defend your case for an offense under section 332 of IPC?
After selecting the services option, a drop-down menu will appear, from which you must select the type of your case.
When you pick a category, a new page opens, and you must now give the following information - a. Complainant's name b. Complainant's mother or father's name c. Complainant's email ID d. Date of occurrence e. Location of incident Time of incidence g. Phone number of complainant h. Any additional relevant description of the situation
Lastly, after submission, you have to enter the captcha code on the form for confirmation.
Following the filing of the FIR, the police may undertake an investigation, and if there is any substantive proof, the accused may be arrested without a warrant because it is a cognizable offense. On the contrary, if no proof is shown, the case is dropped. The police draught a charge sheet if any solid evidence is discovered. Following the completion of the charge sheet, the issue is pursued as a trial in court, with the prosecution establishing the components of Section 332, and if successful, the accused may be sentenced to imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both, at the discretion of the court.
Case laws on Section 332
Union Of India And Others V. Badri Nath Vishwakarma (1993)
The responder worked as a Technician in the Union of India's Post and Telegraph Department. The respondent was prosecuted for assaulting his superiors, including an Engineering Supervisor while working in that position. The respondent was convicted of the offense punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, and the verdict was upheld by the High Court. After receiving notice and the required chance, the respondent was compulsorily retired by an order dated 10-5-1982 issued by the Divisional Engineer (Phones), Varanasi.
On his obligatory retirement, the respondent received his retiral benefits. The respondent opposed his mandatory retirement by bringing an action at the City Munsiff's Court in Varanasi, which was referred to the Central Administrative Tribunal in Allahabad. Bench The responder challenged His forced retirement by bringing a suit in the City Munsiff's Court has emerged in situations like this one.
Varanasi, which was moved to the Allahabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The transferred case was approved by the challenged judgment of 3-9-1992, and the respondent's degree of compulsory retirement was annulled. However, the respondent's earnings have not been repaid by the tribunal. The respondent had filed a special leave petition disputing the tribunal's ruling denying his back pay, but that SLP was already dismissed.
The Union of India has filed a special leave appeal against the tribunal's ruling quashing the mandatory retirement. The indisputable facts of this case show that there can be no cause for interfering with the respondent's mandatory retirement, even though he appeared to have been treated lightly.
Despite his conviction under Section 332 for attacking his senior officers, this decision does not refer to any other record. In these conditions, the obligatory retirement, together with the award of full retiral benefits, was the least action.
In a situation like this, the tribunal misinterpreted its jurisdiction and certainly erred in interfering with the order of compulsory retirement on reasons that, in our judgment, were not accessible to it. As a result, the tribunal's ruling must be overturned insofar as it invalidates the respondent's order of compulsory retirement.
Cherian Skaria v/s State Of Kerala P. (2017)
The petitioner challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 332 IPC in of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni. The de facto complainant, in this case, is the Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition and Revenue Recovery, attached to the Collectorate, Pathanamthitta.
The prosecution case is that when the complainant came to the house of the accused for verification of electoral cards as part of election duty for which he was deputed, the accused abused him, questioned his identity and authority, and also assaulted the public servant and inflicted simple injuries on his body.
The alleged incident happened at about 4.30 p.m. on 03.11.1994. On the next day at about 9.00 a.m., the public servant made a complaint before the Police. After investigation, the Police submitted a final report in court.
The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses in the trial court and proved documents. The papers were also identified during the trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not adduce any evidence in defense.
The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not adduce any evidence in defense. On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Section 332 IPC. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused approached the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta.
In appeal, Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but modified and reduced the sentence. Accordingly, a sentence of simple imprisonment for one month, and a fine of 2,000/- was imposed by the appellate court in appeal. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction under Section 332 IPC, on the contention that there is no material to prove the official status of the defacto complainant.
It has come out in evidence that when the accused questioned his status as a public servant, he failed to produce any document showing his status as a public servant. Of course, he is not bound to prove it there, but when a prosecution comes under Section 332 IPC, the prosecution is bound to prove the official status of the complainant, that he was a public servant discharging official duty.
The prosecution has not produced any material to prove the official status and identity of a public servant. However, his evidence very well proves an instance of assault.
This is corroborated by the evidence, the doctor who examined him at the hospital and issued the wound certificate. The doctor's evidence shows that had some simple injuries like tenderness on his body when examined at the hospital. In the absence of any document or material to prove the identity and official status of a public servant, the conviction under Section 332 cannot be sustained. However, an instance of assault stands proved.
This will come only under Section 323 IPC. In the absence of any document or material to prove the identity and official status as a public servant, the conviction under Section 332 cannot be sustained. However, an instance of assault stands proved. This will come only under Section 323 IPC. he finds that conviction, in this case, is liable to be altered to one under Section 323 IPC.
As the result, this revision petition is allowed in part as follows: The conviction concurrently made by the courts below under Section 332 IPC against the revision petitioner will stand altered to one under Section 323 IPC, and the revision petitioner is found guilty and convicted thereunder. The jail sentence imposed by the court below under Section 332 IPC will stand set aside.
The fine sentence imposed by the court below will stand altered to one under Section 323 IPC, and the amount of fine will stand reduced to 1,000/ with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month.
Conclusion
There are safeguards in place to protect the general population. Similarly, there are several laws in place to secure justice for public personnel. Section 189 of the IPC, for example, protects public officials against any harm posed by the general public.
Section 332 is critical because it protects public servants while they do their jobs. Some of these tasks include guaranteeing social security and maintaining law and order. It is critical to understand these sections because they give public servants rights and impose duties on the general public.
References:
This article aims to carry out an in-depth analysis of the provisions which are covered under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Introduction
The Indian Constitution guarantees certain rights to every individual. Those who infringe those rights are punished by the Indian Penal Code of 1860. Offenses that cause bodily damage to a person are dealt with in Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 332 Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servants from their duty:
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
It discusses intentionally causing harm to prohibit a public worker from performing his duties.
The clause specifies that any individual who causes voluntary injury or harm to a public servant while doing his or her duties to stop the public servant from fulfilling the function is violating the law.
Harm to the body the disorder caused by a person
For example, if A is a public worker and B is any other individual, and B requests information on the application or whatever, and A does not have the expertise and refuses to provide it. If B causes harm to A, he may be prosecuted under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. If a public official arrives to arrest someone and the individual slaps back or causes pain, the person will be prosecuted under Section 332 of the IPC, 1860. Because the public worker is carrying out his responsibilities.
Essentials Ingredients of Section 332
Section 21 of the Code defines the phrase "public servant".Sections 332 and 333 apply only if the public servant was engaged in the exercise of his duties as a public servant, or if it is proven that the accused intended to impede or dissuade the public servant from fulfilling his duty. The phrase 'in the discharge of his duty as such public servant' refers to a responsibility imposed by law on such public servant in a specific situation and does not include an act done in good faith under the color of his authority.
The responsibility does not have to be to perform a specific act.' Prevention' refers to a stage in which the obligation is being carried out; 'deter' refers to a stage in which it has not yet been carried out." Or any other public servant" signifies that the purpose of the attack or harm must be to checkmate either the victim or another public worker tasked with the same mission and then in the execution of his duties."
Or as a result of something done," in which case the attack would be conducted in reprisal. These lines demonstrate that the offense under the section can be committed not only when a person is assaulted while doing a public duty, but also when he is assaulted as a result of performing his duty.
- Inflicting bodily harm or serious bodily harm to a public servant in the course of his duties voluntarily and with free consent.
- The pain must be inflicted.
- Acting in the capacity of a public servant, preventing the public servant from doing the act.
- It is done on purpose to result in the discharge of his role.
Explanation of Essentials
Every officer has a commission in the Indian Armed Forces, Naval Forces, and Air Forces. Every Judge, including any person authorized by law to perform adjudicatory functions alone or in groups.
Everyone employed by a Court of Justice to investigate or report on any matter of law or fact, prepare, authenticate, or keep any document, administer or dispose of any oath, interpret, or maintain order in the Court.
Every jury member or panchayat member assists a court or a public worker. Any arbitrator or other individual to whom a Court of Justice or other competent public authority has referred a case or matter for decision or report.
Those in positions of power have the authority to jail or detain others.
Every government official is tasked with preventing, reporting, prosecuting, or protecting public health, safety, or convenience.
Those officers are tasked with taking, receiving, keeping, or expanding government property, conducting surveys or assessments on behalf of the government, executing revenue processes, investigating or reporting matters affecting the government's financial interests, or making, authenticating, or keeping financial records.
Every official whose job it is to seize, receive, hold, or spend property, to survey, assess, or levy any rate, or to make, authenticate, or keep any document to establish the rights of the inhabitants of any village, town, or district.
Any individual who is hired by the government is compensated for doing public obligations.
Any individual hired by a local authority or a corporation founded by or under the auspices of the federal, provincial, or state governments
Punishment under Section 332
The commission of an offense under this provision carries a three-year jail sentence, a fine, or both.
What is the process to file/defend your case for an offense under section 332 of IPC?
- As previously stated, this is a cognizable case, and the victim should contact local police and file an FIR
- Because it is a punishable offense, the police will apprehend the offender if any evidence is discovered. And if no evidence is found, the case will be dismissed.
- The charge sheet will then be filed, and all evidence gathered will be documented.
- The case will then be heard in court from both sides, a lawyer will be appointed, and the verdict will be issued.
- Alternatively, for more convenience Section 295 is a cognizable offense, hence an E- FIR can be filed.
- Visit the official website of the local or relevant police force.
- When the page loads, select the services tab.
After selecting the services option, a drop-down menu will appear, from which you must select the type of your case.
When you pick a category, a new page opens, and you must now give the following information - a. Complainant's name b. Complainant's mother or father's name c. Complainant's email ID d. Date of occurrence e. Location of incident Time of incidence g. Phone number of complainant h. Any additional relevant description of the situation
Lastly, after submission, you have to enter the captcha code on the form for confirmation.
Following the filing of the FIR, the police may undertake an investigation, and if there is any substantive proof, the accused may be arrested without a warrant because it is a cognizable offense. On the contrary, if no proof is shown, the case is dropped. The police draught a charge sheet if any solid evidence is discovered. Following the completion of the charge sheet, the issue is pursued as a trial in court, with the prosecution establishing the components of Section 332, and if successful, the accused may be sentenced to imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both, at the discretion of the court.
Case laws on Section 332
Union Of India And Others V. Badri Nath Vishwakarma (1993)
The responder worked as a Technician in the Union of India's Post and Telegraph Department. The respondent was prosecuted for assaulting his superiors, including an Engineering Supervisor while working in that position. The respondent was convicted of the offense punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, and the verdict was upheld by the High Court. After receiving notice and the required chance, the respondent was compulsorily retired by an order dated 10-5-1982 issued by the Divisional Engineer (Phones), Varanasi.
On his obligatory retirement, the respondent received his retiral benefits. The respondent opposed his mandatory retirement by bringing an action at the City Munsiff's Court in Varanasi, which was referred to the Central Administrative Tribunal in Allahabad. Bench The responder challenged His forced retirement by bringing a suit in the City Munsiff's Court has emerged in situations like this one.
Varanasi, which was moved to the Allahabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The transferred case was approved by the challenged judgment of 3-9-1992, and the respondent's degree of compulsory retirement was annulled. However, the respondent's earnings have not been repaid by the tribunal. The respondent had filed a special leave petition disputing the tribunal's ruling denying his back pay, but that SLP was already dismissed.
The Union of India has filed a special leave appeal against the tribunal's ruling quashing the mandatory retirement. The indisputable facts of this case show that there can be no cause for interfering with the respondent's mandatory retirement, even though he appeared to have been treated lightly.
Despite his conviction under Section 332 for attacking his senior officers, this decision does not refer to any other record. In these conditions, the obligatory retirement, together with the award of full retiral benefits, was the least action.
In a situation like this, the tribunal misinterpreted its jurisdiction and certainly erred in interfering with the order of compulsory retirement on reasons that, in our judgment, were not accessible to it. As a result, the tribunal's ruling must be overturned insofar as it invalidates the respondent's order of compulsory retirement.
Cherian Skaria v/s State Of Kerala P. (2017)
The petitioner challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 332 IPC in of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni. The de facto complainant, in this case, is the Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition and Revenue Recovery, attached to the Collectorate, Pathanamthitta.
The prosecution case is that when the complainant came to the house of the accused for verification of electoral cards as part of election duty for which he was deputed, the accused abused him, questioned his identity and authority, and also assaulted the public servant and inflicted simple injuries on his body.
The alleged incident happened at about 4.30 p.m. on 03.11.1994. On the next day at about 9.00 a.m., the public servant made a complaint before the Police. After investigation, the Police submitted a final report in court.
The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses in the trial court and proved documents. The papers were also identified during the trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not adduce any evidence in defense.
The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not adduce any evidence in defense. On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Section 332 IPC. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused approached the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta.
In appeal, Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but modified and reduced the sentence. Accordingly, a sentence of simple imprisonment for one month, and a fine of 2,000/- was imposed by the appellate court in appeal. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction under Section 332 IPC, on the contention that there is no material to prove the official status of the defacto complainant.
It has come out in evidence that when the accused questioned his status as a public servant, he failed to produce any document showing his status as a public servant. Of course, he is not bound to prove it there, but when a prosecution comes under Section 332 IPC, the prosecution is bound to prove the official status of the complainant, that he was a public servant discharging official duty.
The prosecution has not produced any material to prove the official status and identity of a public servant. However, his evidence very well proves an instance of assault.
This is corroborated by the evidence, the doctor who examined him at the hospital and issued the wound certificate. The doctor's evidence shows that had some simple injuries like tenderness on his body when examined at the hospital. In the absence of any document or material to prove the identity and official status of a public servant, the conviction under Section 332 cannot be sustained. However, an instance of assault stands proved.
This will come only under Section 323 IPC. In the absence of any document or material to prove the identity and official status as a public servant, the conviction under Section 332 cannot be sustained. However, an instance of assault stands proved. This will come only under Section 323 IPC. he finds that conviction, in this case, is liable to be altered to one under Section 323 IPC.
As the result, this revision petition is allowed in part as follows: The conviction concurrently made by the courts below under Section 332 IPC against the revision petitioner will stand altered to one under Section 323 IPC, and the revision petitioner is found guilty and convicted thereunder. The jail sentence imposed by the court below under Section 332 IPC will stand set aside.
The fine sentence imposed by the court below will stand altered to one under Section 323 IPC, and the amount of fine will stand reduced to 1,000/ with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month.
Conclusion
There are safeguards in place to protect the general population. Similarly, there are several laws in place to secure justice for public personnel. Section 189 of the IPC, for example, protects public officials against any harm posed by the general public.
Section 332 is critical because it protects public servants while they do their jobs. Some of these tasks include guaranteeing social security and maintaining law and order. It is critical to understand these sections because they give public servants rights and impose duties on the general public.
References:
- https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/voluntarily-causing-hurt-to-deter-public-servant-from-his-duty-section-332-ipc-explained-14305.asp
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/hurt-and-grievous-hurt-everything-you-need-to-know-about-it
- https://www.lawtendo.com/indian-kanoon/ipc/section-332
- https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea9f62607dba382a079d21
- https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d91996b714d587fe94d2f0c
Written By: Srija Singh, Second year student of Amity law school, Noida.
Law Article in India
Legal Question & Answers
Lawyers in India - Search By City
LawArticles
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...
Increased Age For Girls Marriage
It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...
Facade of Social Media
One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...
Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...
The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...
Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...
Please Drop Your Comments