Mere Act of Hitting Police Officer With Vehicle Insufficient to Establish Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide Under Section 308 IPC Without Proof of Intention or Knowledge; Conviction Under Section 353 IPC Sustained: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Ramesh v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 06.10.2026
Citation: CRA-S-129-SB-2008
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that merely establishing that an accused struck a police official with a vehicle does not, by itself, constitute an offence under Section 308 IPC. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the requisite intention or knowledge that, had death resulted, the act would have amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The absence of medical evidence, coupled with failure to establish prior threats or premeditation, assumes significance in determining such mens rea. However, where the evidence establishes that the accused used criminal force against a public servant to prevent or deter him from discharging official duties, conviction under Section 353 IPC can be sustained even without proof of bodily injury.
Summary: The appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 308 and 353 IPC arising from an incident dated 26.08.2005, wherein he allegedly drove a jeep against a police official who attempted to stop the vehicle during traffic duty at Fountain Chowk, Gohana. The Trial Court had sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 308 IPC and one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 353 IPC.
The High Court found that the eyewitness testimony sufficiently established the appellant’s identity as the driver and the incident involving the jeep. However, the prosecution had neither examined the doctor who allegedly treated the injured official nor proved the medico-legal report, X-ray or treatment record through competent medical evidence.
The Court observed that the alleged previous threats were unsubstantiated and that the Trial Court itself had recorded the absence of premeditation. In these circumstances, the mere fact that the jeep struck the police official could not establish the specific intention or knowledge required under Section 308 IPC.
Distinguishing the ingredients of Section 353 IPC, the Court held that proof of actual bodily injury was unnecessary where the evidence otherwise established the use of criminal force to obstruct a public servant. The consistent testimony of the police witnesses was sufficient to sustain this charge notwithstanding the non-examination of independent witnesses.
Decision: The High Court partly allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 308 IPC while affirming his conviction under Section 353 IPC.
Considering that more than 20 years had elapsed since the occurrence and that the appellant had already undergone imprisonment for one month and six days, the Court reduced the substantive sentence under Section 353 IPC to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the Trial Court was maintained.