Legal Provisions of Section 332 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty:
Voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from discharging his duty etc. has been made a punishable offence under this section. The section states that whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with the intention of preventing or deterring that public servant or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of either anything done or attempted to be done by that public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Image Source: imgick.nola.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The section requires hurt to be voluntarily caused to a public servant in discharge of his duties as such public servant, or with the intent to prevent or deter him 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 public servant in the lawful discharge of his duties as such public servant.
Where a public servant was attacked not in connection with the discharge of his duty as such public servant but because of an earlier personal quarrel between him and the accused, section 332 is not attracted and the accused was held guilty under section 323. Being in official uniform does not necessarily mean that the public servant is acting in his official duty; it has to be established by evidence.
Where a municipal inspector seized the cycle of a boy for absence of licence and the boy’s father slapped him and took away the cycle forcibly, and the evidence proved that the cycle did have a licence and the inspector was acting in discharge of his duties as such public servant at the time of the incident, the accused was convicted under this section and under section 323.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Where an excise inspector searched the premises of the accused without complying with the statutory requirement under section 165, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and as such the accused resisted the same, it was held that the accused had not committed any offence under this section.
Where the main accused and five others were going for a parikrama when the main accused was arrested as he was a wanted accused in connection with a case, and he took out a knife and inflicted a blow on a constable while the others pelted stones on the police constables, it was held that the main accused was guilty of an offence under this section while the others were guilty under sections 225 and 146 of the Code.
The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable, and is triable by a magistrate of the first class.