Sections 332 & 333 IPC | Lawful Discharge Of Duty Must Be Proved, Mere Status As Public Servant Not Enough: Allahabad High Court Bus Conductor Accused of Assaulting Traffic Inspectors

Allahabad High Court has held that for conviction under Sections 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove that the public servant was acting in the lawful discharge of official duty at the time of the alleged assault. The Court ruled that mere status of the victim as a public servant is insufficient unless it is shown that he was authorised to perform the act he was carrying out.

On 11 March 2026, Justice Avnish Saxena allowing a criminal appeal filed by a UPSRTC bus conductor who had been convicted by the trial court for allegedly assaulting three traffic inspectors during a bus inspection. The High Court set aside the conviction under Sections 332 and 333 IPC after finding that the prosecution failed to establish that the inspectors were lawfully performing their official duty at the time of the incident.

Background of the Case

The case arose from an incident dated 6 August 1981 involving Bus No. UST5238 of Saharanpur Depot plying from Saharanpur to Haridwar. According to the prosecution, three Traffic Inspectors of U.P. Roadways — Attar Singh, Nathu Ram and Budhi Mal — stopped the bus during its journey and boarded it for inspection.

It was alleged that during checking of the way-bill and passenger entries, the conductor Rajendra Kumar became abusive and instigated passengers against the inspectors. When one of the inspectors, Nathu Ram, made a remark on the way-bill, the conductor allegedly punched him twice, causing the loss of two teeth and other injuries. It was further alleged that the conductor assaulted the other inspectors and tore their official documents.

Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 332, 333, 353, 426 and 506 IPC. The trial court ultimately convicted the conductor under Sections 332 and 333 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment.

Aggrieved by the conviction, the accused filed the present appeal before the High Court.

Requirement Of Lawful Discharge Of Duty

The High Court examined the legal ingredients required for conviction under Sections 332 and 333 IPC, which deal with voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter a public servant from performing official duty.

The Court observed that the prosecution must establish three essential elements, namely that the accused voluntarily caused hurt or grievous hurt, that the victim was a public servant, and that the public servant was discharging his official duty at the time of the incident.

The Court noted: “To establish the offence under Sections 332 and 333 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the public servant was discharging his duty as such public servant.”

While it was undisputed that both the accused and the informants were public servants employed by UPSRTC, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the traffic inspectors were authorised to conduct the inspection in question.

Absence Of Authority For Bus Inspection

The Court observed that the prosecution had not produced any document or evidence showing that the traffic inspectors were authorised to stop and inspect the bus on that route.

The Court held: “The three witnesses of fact have not produced any authority that they were authorized to stop and check the roadways bus.”

Referring to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Rules, 1972, the Court noted that inspection of passengers and verification of tickets could be carried out only by a Magistrate or an authorised employee under the applicable rules.

However, no document establishing such authorisation was produced during trial.

The Court further observed that the prosecution evidence also failed to show that the inspectors had introduced themselves or explained the purpose of their inspection while boarding the bus.

The Court concluded: “What authorizes the informants to enter into the bus for checking has not been proved by the prosecution, which is an essential prerequisite for recording conviction under Sections 332 and 333 IPC.”

Inconsistencies In Prosecution Evidence

The Court also found several inconsistencies in the testimonies of the three traffic inspectors regarding the circumstances in which they boarded the bus and conducted the inspection.

The witnesses gave conflicting statements regarding the location where they boarded the bus and the sequence of events leading to the alleged assault.

The Court observed that all three witnesses were interested witnesses and their evidence required careful scrutiny.

The Court noted: “The statements of the three witnesses of fact contain inconsistencies regarding boarding the bus and circumstances of inspection.”

The Court further pointed out that no independent witness such as passengers or the bus driver was examined during the investigation, even though the bus was carrying several passengers.

Medical Evidence And Ocular Testimony

The High Court also examined the medical evidence relating to the alleged injuries suffered by one of the inspectors.

While the prosecution claimed that the accused gave two fist blows causing loss of two teeth, the medical report recorded only an abrasion inside the upper lip and noted that the injury could also occur due to a fall.

The doctor who examined the injured person stated that swelling would normally occur in case of fist blows and also admitted that loss of teeth could occur if the person fell while running.

The Court observed: “The medical and ocular testimonies are inconsistent in nature.”

Delay In Lodging FIR

Another factor considered by the Court was the delay in lodging the FIR.

The Court noted that after the alleged incident, the inspectors did not immediately lodge a report or seek medical treatment even though the police station was located nearby. Instead, they waited for the third inspector to arrive and then filed the complaint.

The Court held that this delay created the possibility of concoction of the prosecution story.

Cross Case And Defence Evidence

The defence also produced evidence suggesting that the incident arose from a dispute regarding ticketing of a child passenger, which angered the passengers. According to the defence, the passengers had detained one of the inspectors and forced him to write an apology letter acknowledging that the inspection remark was incorrect.

The Court also observed that a cross case had been filed by the accused against the inspectors arising from the same incident.

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Nathi Lal v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that where cross cases arise from the same incident, both cases should ideally be tried by the same judge sequentially and decided independently on their respective evidence.

Benefit Of Doubt To Accused

After examining the entire evidence on record, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Jitendra Kumar Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that an appellate court must grant the benefit of doubt where prosecution evidence is unreliable or inconsistent.

The Court held: “The prosecution has failed to prove that the public servants were discharging their official duty as such.”

Decision

Allowing the appeal, the Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and acquitted the appellant Rajendra Kumar of the offences under Sections 332 and 333 IPC.

The Court directed that the appellant, who was already on bail, be discharged from his bail bonds.

Date of Decision: 11 March 2026