Short Note : 1. This is an appeal from jail by the above named appellant, who has been found guilty under sections 332/149, 147 & 353/149 of the Indian Penal Code. For the first offence, he has been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and for the other two offences, he has been sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment on each count. The appellant was tried with ten other accused some of whom have been dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act and the rest have been sentenced to fine only. They do not appear to have filed any appeal against their conviction and sentences. 2. Held : It is an admitted fact that either during or after the incident was over, the appellant had rushed to the Circle Inspector at Ratlam on the bicycle of one of the Police constables taking with him the service rifle and the other articles which the Police had brought with them on the bicycle. The Circle Inspector at Ratlam has not been examined in this case and one does not know what complaint was made by the accused-appellant Mohan to him. The defence of the appellant and the other accused was that not only on the date of the incident but during the preceding night also the Police constables had come there and actually misbehaved with some of the ladies, who were tried in this case. It is rather surprising that though the Police party consisting of the Head constable, two constables, and the village Patel and two Panch witnesses were also present with them, the accused persons assaulted them and the Police constables could do nothing to prevent the assault being made on them. Even the ladies took the courage to catch hold of and attempted to squeeze the private parts and then pulled. This clearly indicates that something must have been done by the Police constables to misbehave with the ladies otherwise the ladies could not take the courage of going to that length. The immediate subsequent conduct of the appellant Mohan in taking possession of the rifle and then rushing to Ratlam to make a report to the Circle Inspector also goes to show that the purpose of the Police constable of going to the house of the appellant was not a lawful purpose. The immediate subsequent conduct of the appellant Mohan in taking possession of the rifle and then rushing to Ratlam to make a report to the Circle Inspector also goes to show that the purpose of the Police constable of going to the house of the appellant was not a lawful purpose. In fact the Circle Inspector should have been examined who alone could show the purpose of the appellant Mohan's approach to him in the aforesaid circumstances. No doubt the prosecution witnesses alleged that the Police party was assaulted but why this assault was made is not clear. With the help of two Police constables, the Head constable armed with a rifle should not have been helpless in apprehending two persons. It is, therefore, clear that something more had happened about which evidence has not been given by the prosecution witnesses. I am therefore, not inclined to accept the prosecution evidence about the accused assaulting the Police constables while they were engaged in discharging their official duties. The prosecution case against the appellant is doubtful and on such doubtful evidence, his conviction cannot be maintained. Appeal allowed.