Ranawat, J.—These are two appeals by Birdha and others from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Kishangarh dated the 28th of October, 1957, convicting the four appellants under sec. 333 I.P.C. and sentencing Devkaran, Sahadev and Birdha to 2 years rigorous imprisonment each and Sarwan to 6 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case was that Johari P.W. 1 was a Forest Guard having protected forest of Mohanpura under him On the 25th of October, 1956, he went to village Khatoli from Kishangarh and on his way back he passed through the protected forest of Mohanpura-ki-ghati at about 10 a. m. He saw cattle grazing in the protected forest and as no cattle were allowed to graze in that area he tried to round them up. The accused Devkaran and others drove the cattle out side the boundaries of the protected forest in order to prevent their seizure Davkaran then grappled with Johari and made him fall down on the ground). He sat on the fore-part of Joharis body and by that time the other accused persons Birdha, Sarwan and Sahadev who were also with the cattle, came near them. They were asked by Devkaran to beat Johari and they accordingly started beating him by sticks and hit several blows on his legs. Suwa Jat, Suwa Regar and Ganga Singh happened to come there from different directions and then they saw Johari being beaten by the accused they raised an alarm and challenged the accused persons, who there upon left Johari and ran away Johari was then made to sit on a pole and carried by Suwa Jat, Ganga Singh and others to a place called Haria Nada from where he was taken to Yagya Narain Hospital, Kishangarh where he was admitted as an indoor patient. Harish Chander Forest, Ranger,Kishangarh having come to know about the beating given to Johari went to see him at the hospital, and after enquiring from him lodged the first information report at the police Station, Kishangarh, in which Devkaran, Birdha and Sarwan were named as the accused and one more person was started to have taken part in the beating whose name Johari did not know. The police took up the investigation and arrested Devkaran and three others. On medical examination, the doctor suspected that one of the bones of Joharis leg was fractured. The police took up the investigation and arrested Devkaran and three others. On medical examination, the doctor suspected that one of the bones of Joharis leg was fractured. He therefore, sent him for X-ray examination to Ajmer and it was confirmed by the X-ray examination that one of the bones of his leg had been broken. The police challanged all the four accused appellants to the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kishangarh, who committed them to session, to stand their trial under sec. 333 I.P.C. 3. The defence of the accused was that Johari went to Devkaran in the field of Jairam in village Sardar Singh-ki-dhani and demand ad money for drinks and on Devkaran refusing to comply with the demand, he grappled with him. The cattle of the accused were driven away by Suwa Jat. The accused did not admit that their cattle had trespassed into the protected forest or that they gave a beating to Johari. 4. The learned Sessions Judge believed the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, Johari, Suwa Jat, Suwa Regar, and found that it was established that Johari saw the cattle of the accused grazing in the protected forest of Mohanpura-ki-ghati and when he wanted to round them up the accused Devkaran grappled with him and made him fall down on the ground and the other accused came to the assistance of Devkaran and gave a beating to Johari with lathis breaking one of the bones of his leg. It was also held that Johari was a public servant and that he was discharging his duty in rounding up the cattle when he was given a beating by the accused persons. All the four accused were, therefore, convicted and sentenced as noted above. 5. Mr. Dutta for the appellants urged that the finding of the lower court was wrong that Johari was beaten by the accused persons in the area of the protected forest of Mohanpura-ki-ghati. According to the learned counsel the beating if any, was given in the field of Jairam, as stated by Suwa Jat P.W. 5, which place was out side the area of the protected forest and was in the occupation and cultivation of Jairam Jat of Sardar Singh-ki-dhani. According to the learned counsel the beating if any, was given in the field of Jairam, as stated by Suwa Jat P.W. 5, which place was out side the area of the protected forest and was in the occupation and cultivation of Jairam Jat of Sardar Singh-ki-dhani. It was urged that Johari had no reason to round up the cattle from the field of Jairam, and the accused persons were well within their rights to offer resistence to the seizing of the cattle at that place and even if they inflicted some injuries to Johari in self-defence of the property they could not be made liable for punishment under sec.333 I.P.C. It was further urged that Sahadev was not named in the first information report and according to the statement of Johari he was known to the witness from before. Sahadev. therefore, could not have taken part in the beating. 6. The case of Sahadev may be dealt with first. His name docs not appear in the first information report. The names of the other three accused appellants are stated therein and it is mentioned that there was one other person whose name Johari did not know. As per the statement of Johari, Sahadev was known to him from before this occurrence If Sahadev had taken part in the beating, Johari could not have failed to mention his name in the first information report, as he was known to him from before. The evidence of Johari, Suwa Jat and Suwa Regar cannot be believed as against Sahadev when scrutinised in the light of the first information report. The other witnesses, Suwa Jat and Suwa Regar also knew his name from before, and Johari, Suwa Jat and Suwa Regar remained together for some time after the occurrence. The first information report was lodged after Johari had been taken to Kishangarh and admitted to the hospital. It can not, therefore, be accepted that Johari would have missed Sahhdevs name, who was known to him at the time of the making of the first information report if he had participated in the occurrence. The case of Sahadev is, therefore, doubtful and his conviction and sentence under the circumstances cannot be considered to be proper. He is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 7. Johari, Suwa Jat and Suwa Regar are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The case of Sahadev is, therefore, doubtful and his conviction and sentence under the circumstances cannot be considered to be proper. He is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 7. Johari, Suwa Jat and Suwa Regar are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Ganga Singh who was also an eye-witness was not examined as a witness on behalf of the prosecution. Johari has stated "while he was returning from Khatoli he found a number of cattle grazing in the protected forest of Mohanpura-ki-ghati at about 10 Oclock in the morning on the 25th of October, 1956; he wanted to round up the cattle but Deokaran and others drove them away; he was then caught hold of by Devkaran and made to fall down on the ground; Devkaran sat over his body and the other accused inflicted blows with lathis on his legs and he was left after Suwa Jat, Suwa Regar and Ganga Singh came on the scene of occurrence; he was conveyed to Hariya Nada and then to Kishangarh where he was medically examined." According to the testimony of Johari, the occurrence took place within the area of the protected forest. The evidence of Suwa Regar is also to the effect that when he crossed Mohanpura-ki-ghati, he saw Johari lying on the ground and Devkaran sitting over him and the other accused striking blows with lathis on his legs. This, according to the witness, took place about 20 paces from the place where the witness stood at that time after having come out of Mohanpura-ki-ghati. The evidence of Suwa Jat is, however, a little inconsistent with the testimony of Johari and Suwa Regar in so far as he has stated that the occurrence of beating took place in the field of Jairam. The witness has further stated that the field of Jairam was towards the south of the Nala which is the boundary of Mohanpura and Sardar Singh ki-dhani. The statement of Suwa Jat as a whole makes it clear that the occurrence according to this witness took place at a distance from the area of the protected forest. The prosecution did not care to question the witness any further when he stated that the occurrence took place on Jairams field and not within the area of the protected forest. The Investigating Officer also appeared as one of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution did not care to question the witness any further when he stated that the occurrence took place on Jairams field and not within the area of the protected forest. The Investigating Officer also appeared as one of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. He stated that he took blood smeared earth from a place within the area of the protected forest. The blood smeared earth which was taken possession of by the Investigating Officer was not sent for chemical examination and it cannot, under the circumstances, be accepted that the earth which the officer collec|ed from the spot of occurrence was realy blood stained. However, the evidence of Suwa, Jat, who is one of the prosecution witnesses, is, as mentioned above, to the effect that the occurrence took place in Jairams field and not in the area of the protected forest. The argument of the learned counsel of the appellants is that Johari cannot be supposed to be performing his duty while seizing cattle from Jairams field and if he was beaten at that place, the accused were within their rights of self defence of property to offer resistance to him. 8. Mr. Chatterji for the State has replied that as Johari had seen the cattle trespassing in the protected forest and as he had pursued them in order to round them up, he had a right to seize them even after they had run away from the area of the protected forest and entered Jairams field and Johari being a public servant and a Forest Guard was duty bound to do so. The decisions in Naryani vs. Emperor (1). Faiyaz Khan vs. Rex (2). Hansa vs. State (3) and Jagannath Singh vs. Emperor (4) have been cited in support of the contention. 9. Mr. Dutta has referred to the decision in Bhagwant Rao vs. Champat Rao (5) and Jiwana vs. Emperor (6). 10. It may be observed that as per the evidence of Suwa Jat P. W. 5 it may be accepted that the occurrence took place in Jairams filed and not as stated by Johari within the area of the protected forest. Mr. Dutta has referred to the decision in Bhagwant Rao vs. Champat Rao (5) and Jiwana vs. Emperor (6). 10. It may be observed that as per the evidence of Suwa Jat P. W. 5 it may be accepted that the occurrence took place in Jairams filed and not as stated by Johari within the area of the protected forest. It may also be held proved that Johari saw cattle grazing within the area of the protected forest of Mohanpura-ki-ghati, and before he could round them up the accused drove them away out of the area of the forest, from the statement of Johari and of Suwa Jat it may be concluded that after the accused drove away the cattle, Johari pursued them and was beaten when he had gone in Jairams field in this context of the facts of the case the question arises whether lawfully pursued the cattle upto and within the field of Jairam after the cattle had left the area of the protected forest. 11. Under English Law cattle can be seized while still on the land actually trespassing and not afterwards. Vide Salmonds Law of Torts (Tenth Edition page 197) and the cases of Vaspor vs. Edwards (1701), 12 Mod 658 and Clement vs. Milner (1800), 3 Esp.95. According to Salmond, "the thing must be seized while still, on the land. There is no right of following it even in fresh pursuit, and even if it is purposely removed by its owner in order to avoid distress." The law on the subject in India is contained in sec. 10 of the Cattle Trespass Act, which has been made applicable to the reserve and protected forests by virtue of sec 17 of the Rajasthan forest Act of 1952. Sec. 10 of the Cattle Trespass Act runs as follows— "The cultivator or occupier of any land, or any person who has advanced cash for the cultivation of the crop or produce on any land, or the vendee or mortgagee of such crop or produce or any part thereof, may seize or cause to be seized any cattle trespassing on such land, and doing damage thereto or to any crop or produce thereon, and send them or cause them to be sent within twenty-four hours to the pound established for the village in which the land is situate. Police to aid seizure — All officers of police shall, when required, aid in preventing (a) resistance to such seizures, and (b) rescues from persons making such seizures. The courts in India have interpreted sec. 10 differently. According to the decisions referred to by Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the State, the right, under sec. 10 of the Cattle Trespass Act, to seize cattle trespassing on land and doing damage there to is not limited to the period when the trespass continues and extends even after the cattle leave the land, provided notice of trespass is taken at once. 12. A contray opinion that there is no right of seizure after the cattle leave the land has been expressed in the cases cited by Mr. Datta. In Hansa vs. State (3) the case in Bhagwat Rao vs. Champat Rao (5) which supported the contrary view was distinguished on the ground that in that case the cattle had gone to their shed or very near it so as to have reached into the physical possession of the owners. It seems difficult to draw a line upto which the right of seizure may be taken to be available after the cattle leave the land. The plain language of sec. 10 gives a right of seizure of cattle trespassing on the land and doing damage thereto. The terms trespassing and doing damage appearing in sec. 10 are in the present continuous tense and ordinarily they can only be understood to restrict the right of seizure to the period when the cattle are trespassing and are doing damage. It would amount to stretching the meaning of the language of sec. 10 to read therein the provision for the right of seizure even after cattle had left the land and ceased to commit trespass. The learned Single Judge, who gave judgment in the case of Hansa vs. State (3), has observed that it was undesirable to restrict the right of seizure to the period when the cattle commit trespass when notice of trespass is taken immediately and the cattle are chased for being taken to the cattle pound. With due respect to the learned Judge it may be noted that there appears nothing unreasonable in restricting the right of seizure to the period of trespass only. The law in England is also to the same effect. The plain grammatical meaning of sec. With due respect to the learned Judge it may be noted that there appears nothing unreasonable in restricting the right of seizure to the period of trespass only. The law in England is also to the same effect. The plain grammatical meaning of sec. 10 is that there is a right of seizure of cattle trespassing on land and doing damage thereto and which must be taken to come to an end after the cattle leave the land. It my not be reasonable to stretch the meaning of sec. 10 in favour of the owner of the land so as to create uncertain situation inviting conflicts between the owners of cattle on the one hand and the occupiers of land on the other. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that the right of seizure only extends within the period the cattle are on the land and it ceases after they leave such land. Taking this to be the law, it may be observed that Johari had no right to chase the cattle outside the area of the protected forest and the accused persons being owners of the cattle had a right to obstruct the seizure of the cattle in their own field or in the field of Jairam, who was their neighbour outside the area of the protected forest. The accused persons would have had a right of self-defence of their property and would have escaped the liability for having caused injuries to Johari if they had not exceeded their right by indulging in the act of beating Johari even when not required for the purpose of the right of private defence. Johari had fallen down on the ground and Devkaran was sitting on him. Under these circumstances there could be hardly any justification for the other accused beating Johari and continuing to do so for some time, for Johari while he was lying down could not have persisted in rounding up the cattle. Causing injuries to Johari in that situation can only be understood to have been done aggressively and not in exercise of the right of private defence of property of the accused persons. 13. It is in the evidence of Suwa Regar that Devkaran asked the other accused persons to beat Johari while he was holding him and the others in pursuance of Dev-karans call gave a beating with lathies on the legs of Johari. 13. It is in the evidence of Suwa Regar that Devkaran asked the other accused persons to beat Johari while he was holding him and the others in pursuance of Dev-karans call gave a beating with lathies on the legs of Johari. This circumstance is sufficient to warrant the application of the provisions of sec. 34 against all the accused for indulging into the occurrence in pursuance of common intention. 14. The medical evidence on the record shows that one of bones of the legs of Johari got fractured due to the beating. Johari had in all 11 injuries of which a few were on his ribs. There were two contusions and nine abrasions on his body. 15. As Johari had no lawful right to seize the cattle in Jairams field, it cannot be held that he was acting in discharge of his duty while seizing the cattle at that place. The offence under sec. 333 IPC would, therefore, be not proved against the accused persons. However, the offence would fall within the scope of the provision of sec. 325 read with sec. 34 IPC as the accused persons, Devkaran, Birdha and Sarwan joined together in beating Johari in pursuance of the common intention of beating him. 16. The appeals are partly accepted. The conviction and sentence passed by the lower court against Sahadev are set aside and he is acquitted. He is on bail and need not surrender to it. The convictions of Devkaran, Birdha and Sarwan are reduced from sec. 333 IPC to sec. 325 IPC and the sentences of 2 years rigorous imprisonment in cases of Birdha and Devkaran are reduced to one years rigorous imprisonment each only and the sentence of Sarwan already undergone is deemed sufficient to meet the ends of justice,in view of the fact that he is a young boy. Both Birdha and Devkaran are on bail, and they shall surrender to it and be sent to jail to undergo their remaining terms of sentences.