Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty
Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to 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 two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 353, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 132 Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-14.pdf 2015-01-20 DATE VERIFIED. Crl A 141/2015. Banumathi/Gowda. A Facebook comment about hospital treatment does not, without more, make out IPC 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant) or IPC 503/506 criminal intimidation (intent to cause alarm). Mere words without the statutory ingredients do not sustain the FIR. CrPC 482 already filled — do not remap.
On this section: s.353 needs assault or criminal force to deter a public servant; a Facebook comment without that force does not make out the offence (Manik Taneja).
-
State of Orissa vs Sikhar Jena
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court, particularly a High Court, when setting aside convictions and acquitting accused persons in serious criminal matters involving multiple deaths, must provide reasoned and detailed findings explaining why the trial court's conviction is being overturned. A mere assertion that a prosecution witness is not credible, without providing substantive reasons for discarding their evidence, does not constitute a valid basis for acquittal. The appellate court must deal comprehensively with the various points highlighted by both the prosecution and the defense before arriving at a conclusion, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and proper judicial procedure.
On this section: Criminal force to deter public servant from duty; applied to respondent 6
-
Surajsinh Alias Sonu Surajsinh Collectorsinh Alias Sevaram Rajput vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of kidnapping for ransom, conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence where the core facts—kidnapping of the victim, recovery of the victim in custody of the accused, and proof of ransom demand through telephone records and witness testimony—are established. Minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness statements, particularly those arising from the passage of time or the tender age of a child witness, must be ignored if the essential elements of the crime and the identity of the accused are proved through reliable and corroborating evidence. Non-recovery of a specific item (such as a SIM card) does not materially affect the proof of the act alleged to have been committed using that item when the act itself is proved through independent witness testimony and documentary records such as call details. An acquittal in related but distinct criminal charges does not operate to overturn a conviction in a separate and distinct charge arising from the same transaction if the evidence for the latter charge stands independently proved.
On this section: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from duty. Related charge in Dausa case from which appellant was acquitted.
-
Jagtamba Devi vs Hem Ram
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court is constitutionally and procedurally bound to provide reasoned orders explaining the basis for its decision. The complete absence of reasons in a judicial order renders that order unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice. An order that merely states "Heard. Dismissed" without any indication of the court's mind or application of law is fundamentally defective and subject to reversal on appeal. The right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, and the giving of reasons is one of the salutary requirements of natural justice.
On this section: Assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty; charge in the original complaint.
-
Shajahan@shaje@shahul Hameed@basha@thoka vs The State Rep. by the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police and Chief Investigating Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where evidence of harboring under Section 212 IPC depends on witness testimony that the escaped prisoner came to and resided at a specific location, and the owner of that location and other witnesses explicitly deny this allegation without contradiction from the prosecution, the harboring charge cannot be sustained even if conspiracy is otherwise proved, as the charge of harboring requires clear positive evidence of the specific act of harboring and cannot rest on mere presumption or conspiracy alone.
On this section: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from duty
-
State of U. P vs Shyam Veer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving retaliatory acts committed in the immediate aftermath of a grave provocation (such as the death of a family member), a time gap of 15 minutes between the initial provocation and the retaliatory act may be insufficient to establish that the accused had regained self-control. Where the provocation is both grave and sudden, and the retaliatory act follows within a very short time frame without intervening cooling-off period, Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC (sudden grave provocation) can apply, reducing culpability from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC. Additionally, criminal liability under abetment provisions (Section 109 IPC) requires proof that the alleged accomplice was present and aided or encouraged the principal offender; mere alleged prevention of others from extinguishing a fire is insufficient to establish accomplice liability if the person was not present when the offence was committed or the conspiracy was formed.
On this section: Criminal force to deter public servant from duty; applied to charges against respondents 6 to 13 for allegedly preventing police from extinguishing the fire
-
Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Although Section 307 IPC offences are non-compoundable and conviction cannot be withdrawn even if parties reconcile, the court possesses discretion to reduce the substantive sentence based on mitigating circumstances such as the appellants' lack of criminal background, passage of significant time (20 years), genuine reconciliation between parties, and the fact that the appellants have already undergone substantial imprisonment (more than 2.5 years). In matters involving simple agriculturists with no criminal propensity, where relations have become cordial and they have served substantial time, the ends of justice are served by reducing the sentence to time already undergone rather than rigidly adhering to the original sentence.
On this section: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from his duty. Applied to the attack on the police outpost and security personnel.
-
Vipul Tej M K vs The Police Inspector
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where allegations in a criminal complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that they do not constitute cognizable offences and no prudent person can reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the criminal proceedings should be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the present case, the charges of criminal force (Section 353 IPC), unauthorized election expenses (Section 171H IPC), and violation of election pamphlet rules (Section 127A of the Representation of People Act, 1950) were wholly unjustified as there was no factual basis for any of these charges. A generic political slogan on a vehicle does not constitute electioneering canvassing and does not violate election laws.
On this section: Provision for criminal force against public servant. Court held that this section would not be attracted as there was no allegation of criminal force being used by the petitioner against the officers discharging poll duties.
-
Nadeem Shakil Bhujwala vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere gestures, pointing of fingers, and abusive language directed at public servants, without evidence of actual criminal force or clear intention or knowledge that such conduct will cause apprehension of criminal force, do not constitute assault under Section 351 IPC or the offence under Section 353 IPC. To attract Section 353 IPC, there must be either actual use of criminal force or a clear preparation with requisite intention to cause apprehension of criminal force. Heated arguments and verbal altercations during the course of official duties, without more, do not establish the statutory offence.
On this section: Assault or use of criminal force on public servant in execution of duty or with intention to prevent discharge of duty. Court examined whether the facts established this offence, finding that mere gestures and verbal abuse without clear intention to cause apprehension do not constitute the offence.
-
Imran Kamal Sayyad vs The State of Maharashtra Through Malwani Police Station
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an offense of obstructing a public servant (Section 353 IPC) does not involve serious physical injury or pending property/article recovery, further custodial detention is unwarranted, and the risk of witness tampering is minimal where the witnesses are themselves public servants.
On this section: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.
-
Renjith vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where the essential ingredients of an offence, namely assault or criminal force as defined in Sections 350 and 351 IPC, are not made out from the allegations in the charge sheet, and the prosecution case contains material factual discrepancies (such as misidentification of the vehicle type), the High Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings as an abuse of the process of court, even if the case is pending in the lower court.
On this section: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty - the primary offence charged; court found this offence not made out as neither assault nor criminal force was established
-
Anand Singh vs Prem Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The bar of limitation prescribed under Section 468 CrPC is mandatory and applies to defamation offences. A court cannot take cognizance of a defamation offence after the expiry of three years from the date of the offence. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of this limitation bar, and the revisional court erred in ignoring this bar and passing a summoning order. Additionally, a revisional court must issue notice to the petitioner before passing an adverse order, as required by the principles of natural justice.
On this section: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from duty; cited in the trial court conviction
-
457 Crpc vs Thirunavalur P.S
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Seized property in criminal cases involving mineral-related offenses under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act must be handled through the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 22 of the Act and relevant Government Orders, and cannot be returned through individual petitions under CrPC Section 457 without following the designated authority's procedure.
On this section: Criminal intimidation - applicable to the underlying sand mining case
-
Deepak Saini vs State of Uttarakhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases where offences are classified as Category A under the Supreme Court's framework (offences punishable for less than 7 years imprisonment), anticipatory bail applications are not maintainable because the accused cannot be taken into physical custody and bail applications must be decided without physical custody or by granting interim bail, thereby rendering the anticipatory bail application unnecessary.
On this section: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from duty - one of the charges against the applicant
-
Prince Kumar vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An elderly person with a clean criminal record and no prior antecedents, who is alleged to have played an ambiguous and inconsistent role in a case involving assault on police personnel, and where the police have violated procedural requirements under Section 46 Cr.P.C during the investigation, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, subject to furnishing appropriate bail bonds and sureties and compliance with conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
On this section: Charge of assault or criminal force to deter public servant from duty
-
Ranjeet Yadav vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An FIR disclosing prima facie cognizable offences cannot be quashed at the writ petition stage merely on the assertion that allegations are false and concocted. However, interim protection from arrest may be granted to an accused willing to cooperate with investigation, with the condition that the accused participates in the investigation and police conclude the investigation expeditiously.
On this section: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from duty
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 353
What have the courts held on Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code?
Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (20 Jan 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.353 needs assault or criminal force to deter a public servant; a Facebook comment without that force does not make out the offence (Manik Taneja). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 353, section 353 IPC, section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 353 in bns and ipc 353 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (20 Jan 2015).
What should I read with Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 132 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 353, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.