The guard was acting in his right
The section requires proof of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with the intention of preventing or deterring him or any other public servant from discharging such duty, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by him in the lawful discharge of such duty. This section is similar to, but more severe than, the preceding section as grievous hurt, and not hurt as in section 332, is caused under this section and that is why it prescribes a more severe punishment. Where a forest guard while attempting to prevent the accused from cutting timber in a government forest seized his axe, and in the process he received certain blows given by the accused, it was held that the guard was acting in his right of private defence while seizing the axe and the accused was guilty under sections 333 and 386 of the Code. Where the appellant tried to enter into the driver’s cabin of a State transport bus at a bus stand and the driver tried to prevent him from doing so but the appellant abused and kicked him causing grievous hurt, he was convicted under this section as the driver was discharging his duty as such public servant.
Where the appellant was carrying packets of a detergent powder on his cycle and peons of the municipal board stopped him with the view to make him pay the octroi but he used force against them while being to the board’s office causing slight dislocation in a peon’s thumb, it was held that his arrest by peons being illegal he was justified in using force and so was not guilty under this section. In Siyasaran v. State of M.P.
since the accused was dissatisfied by the treatment given to his brother he gave the first blow to an assistant surgeon in a government hospital dislocating his tooth. The Supreme Court held him guilty under sections 333 and 506 of the Code. The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable, and is triable by court of session.