Voluntarily Causing Hurt To Deter Public Servant From His Duty - Section 332 IPC: Explained

Introduction

This article deals with the explanation of Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Every individual is guaranteed certain rights under the Indian Constitution. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, provides for the punishment of those who violate those rights. Chapter XVI, that is, Section 299 to Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, is devoted to offences that cause bodily harm to a person. Section 332, IPC makes an act of voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from discharging his duty as a punishable offence.

Reading of the Section

Section 332, IPC reads as followed:

"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."

Explanation and the Essential Ingredients

Under section 332, IPC, it is essential to understand a few terms first, like Public Servant. Section 21 of the IPC, 1860 enumerates and describes a Public Servant. It says that any person falling under these categories is a Public Servant:

• Every Commissioned Officer in the Indian Armed Forces, Naval Forces, and Air Forces.
• Every Judge, including any person empowered by law to perform adjudicatory functions alone or as part of a group;
• Everyone who is 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 or panchayat member assisting a court or public servant.
• Any arbitrator or other person to whom a Court of Justice or other competent public authority has referred a case or matter for decision or report.
• Those in office who have the power to imprison or detain others.
• Every government officer whose duty is to prevent, report, prosecute, or protect public health, safety, or convenience.
• Those officers tasked with taking, receiving, keeping, or expending property on behalf of the government, 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 officer whose duty it is to take, receive, keep, or spend property, to survey, assess, or levy any rate, or to make, authenticate, or keep any document to ascertain the rights of the people of any village, town, or district
• Anyone in a position to prepare, publish, maintain, or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election.
• Any person employed by the government and paid for performing public duties.
• Any person employed by a local authority, a corporation established by or under a central, provincial or state government (1 of 1956.)

In the case Ramesh v. the State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court firstly pointed out that a public servant is an authority appointed by the government or semi-government body and paid by the same. Secondly, a public servant must perform his duties under government rules and regulations. In the case, a Municipal Councilor who was not assisting a public servant was not a public servant under Section 21 because any governmental authority did not appoint him.

The section discusses intentionally inflicting harm on a public servant in order to dissuade him from performing his duties. According to the section, anyone who causes voluntary damage or harm to a public servant while performing his duty with the intent of preventing the public servant from performing his duty shall be punished.

The "hurt" caused under section 332 is the same as that discussed in section 319 of the IPC, 1860. As per section 319, IPC, to constitute hurt, it is essential to cause any person any injury or harm to the body, any bodily pain, disease or infirmity. Any person convicted under this section shall be punished with simple or rigorous Imprisonment for a term up to three years, or with a fine, or with both.

Further, the essentials to constitute an offence under this section are:

Voluntarily causing harm to a public servant while he discharged his duties as a public servant.

With the intention to prevent or deter any public servant from performing his duties as a public servant.

Action is taken as a result of anything the public servant has done or attempted to do in the lawful discharge of his duties.

An instance to understand the application of this section can be if a police officer with an arrest warrant tries to arrest a person. The person causes hurt to the officer in return or any form of infirmity during the arrest. The person to be arrested will be charged under section 332 of IPC, 1860. The reason being, the public servant is performing his duty. In contrast, the person to be arrested obstructed the public servant from performing his duty.

It is to be noted that intention plays a significant role while determining the applicability of Section 332, IPC. The intention is a critical element of criminal law. The term "mens rea" shows a criminal intent or a guilty mind. The term 'intention' is not defined in the IPC, but section 34 deals with common intention. The intention of several people to do something wrong and the action taken in that manner is explained under Section 34 of the IPC.

Section 34 deals with situations in which an offence necessitates a specific criminal intent or knowledge and is committed by a group. Each of them who participates in the act with such knowledge or intent is liable in the same way as if he did it alone with that knowledge or intention. The definition of intention is similar. The person committing an offence is said to have an intention when he has the knowledge and criminal intent to execute it.

When there is no evidence to prove that harm was caused with the intent to deter a public servant from performing their official duties, the Court held in the landmark case of D.Chattaiah v. State of A.P. (AIR 1978 SC 1441) that the petitioner's conviction for the offence under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable.

Nature of the Offence

As mentioned under section 332, the offence falls under the category of offences affecting the Human Body. The punishment so provided for the offence is Imprisonment for three years, or fine, or both. The trial for this offence is to be done before a Magistrate of First Class.

The offence is Cognizable, which means that in cases like these, the police have the authority to make an arrest without a warrant and start an investigation. As well as, it is a non-compoundable offence, where the offence is of such a serious nature that it cannot be compounded. It is also of non-bailable nature; this implies that the grant of Bail in these cases is not a matter of right.

In another landmark case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that where a respondent has been convicted under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, his continued employment in the public sector is undesirable.

Conclusion

There are provisions that protect the general public. Similarly, there are an ample number of provisions that ensure justice for the public servants themselves. For instance, Section 189 of IPC provides protection to the public servants against any threat from the public. Section 332 is essential as it protects the Public Servants while they carry out their duties. Some of such responsibilities can be ensuring social security or maintaining law and order. It is essential to know these sections because they provide rights to the public servants and create a duty on the general public.