JUDGMENT 1. - This is a jail appeal filed by Sukhdeo against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, dated May 23, 1980, by which the appellant was convicted under sections 452 and 333, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on the first count and on the second to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story may be briefly described as follows:- Sukhdeo appellant was a Government employee in the Veterinary Hospital, Hurda. Ganpat Lal Mathur was District Animal Husbandary Officer, Bhilwara at that time. The appellant used to work on the post of Sayees under the control and supervision of the aforesaid officer. The appellant wanted to get payment of his unpaid salary through Shri Ganpat Lal Mathur. On March 7, 1979, at about 4.30 p.m. Ganpat Lal Mathur returned from tour to his office and began to see the Government papers which he had received from post-office. When he was looking into the papers,the appellant having armed himself with a lathi entered the office of Ganpat Lal Mathur and asked the latter why he had not made payment to the former of his unpaid salary. Ganpat Lal Mathur replied that certain objections had been made to the bill by the Treasury Officer and the payment would be made to the appellant after removing those objections. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply given to his query by Ganpat Lal Mathur. He, therefore, become enraged and began to beat Ganpat Lal Mathur with his stick. The appellant broke the mirror that was placed on the table. Ganpat Lal came out of his office in order to protect himself from the attack made on him by the appellant. He was saved by some persons who came to his rescue on seeing the appellant trying to give him further beating. Thereafter Ganpat Lal Mathur rushed to police station. Bhilwara, and lodged a report of this incident with the police. The police sent Ganpat Lal Mathur to Dr. Chaggan Lal for medical examination of his injuries. Dr. He was saved by some persons who came to his rescue on seeing the appellant trying to give him further beating. Thereafter Ganpat Lal Mathur rushed to police station. Bhilwara, and lodged a report of this incident with the police. The police sent Ganpat Lal Mathur to Dr. Chaggan Lal for medical examination of his injuries. Dr. Chaggan Lal examined Ganpat Lal and found the following external injuries on his person: 1. Swelling 6 cm. x 4 cm. on the medical half of dorsum of right hand just above the Kunckle of the ring and little finger; 2. bruise 6 cm. x 2.5 cm. of red colour on the left side of chest just above nipple in oblique direction; 3. bruise 12 cm. x 2.5 cm. of red colour on postolateral side of left upper arm in oblique direction. He suspected fracture of meta-carpal bone of the right hand of the injured. So he got it X-rayed by Dr. S.K. Mukherji, who, upon X-ray detected fracture of the spox of the 5th meta carpal bone of Ganpat Lal's right hand. The other injuries found on the person of Ganpat Lal were, however, simple caused by blunt weapon. Police made usual investigation into the case and after collecting necessary evidence eventually filed a charge-sheet against the appellant under sections 452 and 333, I.P.C. in the court of the Munsiff Magistrate Bhilwara, who upon finding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,committed the appellant to the court of the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, for trial, under section 452 and 333, I.P.C. The appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge and was found guilty of the aforesaid offences. Accordingly the Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant on both the counts as stated above. Aggrieved by his convictions and sentences, the appellant has preferred this jail appeal. The jail appeal was admitted by this Court and a notice of hearing of the appeal was given to the Public Prosecutor and to the appellant through the Superintendent, District Jail, Bhilwara. The notice was served on the appellant on 4-8-1980. He did not appear before me. Hence, I heard Mr. N.S. Acharya, Public Prosecutor, and perused the memo of the appeal and the record. 3. The notice was served on the appellant on 4-8-1980. He did not appear before me. Hence, I heard Mr. N.S. Acharya, Public Prosecutor, and perused the memo of the appeal and the record. 3. In the memo of the appeal, it was contended by the appellant that he requested Ganpat Lal Mathur for early payment of his unpaid salary, but the latter turned dead years to his request. He, therefore, made a representation to the then Minister Shri Kalyan Singh Kalvi, who directed in writing to Ganpat Lal Mathur to make the payment at the earliest. After obtaining the order from Shri Kalyan Singh Kalvi. the then Minister Incharge of the Animal Husbandary Department, he produced the order before Shri Ganpat Lal Mathur, who, being annoyed on account of his approach, made to the then Minister, implicated the appellant in this false case out of revenge. It was further urged that the incident was alleged to have taken place on March 7, 1979, but the bill of his unpaid salary was prepared on March 3, 1979. This fact clearly indicates that the appellant has been implicated in a false case. 4. I have considered the above contentions raised by the appellant in his memo of appeal and carefully perused the evidence on the record. Upon careful review of the entire evidence, I am of the view that the appellant entered the office of Shri Ganpat Lal and made an assault on him with a stick. The stick fell on the right hand of Ganpat Lal and fractured his meta carpal bane as is evident from the X-ray report and the statements of Dr. S.K. Mukherji and Dr. Chagan Lal. It is further proved on the record that the appellant aimed a second blow on the body of Ganpat Lal, but it did not fall on his hand and fell on the mirror lying on the table as a result of which the mirror was broken. Ganpat Lal thereafter came out of his office. The appellant followed him and again assaulted him with result of which Ganpat Lal received injuries on his chest and left arm. The persons standing outside came to the rescue of Ganpat Lal. Ganpat Lal was cross-examined at length in the trial court but nothing was elicited from his cross-examination which may tend to destroy the value of his evidence or to impeach his credit. The persons standing outside came to the rescue of Ganpat Lal. Ganpat Lal was cross-examined at length in the trial court but nothing was elicited from his cross-examination which may tend to destroy the value of his evidence or to impeach his credit. The statement of Ganpat Lal in the trial court stands fully corroborated by the medical evidence as to the presence of injuries on his right hand, chest and left upper arm. His evidence on merits is further corroborated by the testimony of Harbans Singh, P.W. 4, who clearly stated in his deposition that the appellant struck a blow on the right hand of Ganpat Lal Mathur with a stick and gave another blow which fell on the mirror lying on the table as a result of which the mirror was broken. Harbanssingh claimed to have intervened and rescued Ganpatlal Mathur. The evidence of Harbans Singh also does not suffer from any infirmity although he was cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the appellant in the trial court. The other witnesses, namely, Babulal. PW 3, Bhanwar Singh, PW 5 and Prakash PW 7 have no doubt turned hostile to the prosecution case, but upon close scrutiny of their evidence, it appears that they resided from their previous statements which they gave before the police during the course of investigation and tried to favour the appellant in the trial court. Hence, from their evidence it cannot be safely held that no such incident as alleged by the prosecution took place, especially when there is cogent and reliable evidence of Ganpat Lal and Harbanssingh on the record supported by the medical evidence to substantiate the case of the prosecution. Consequently, I find no substantial ground for interference with the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge as to the guilt o f the appellant under section 333, IPC., because the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused grievous hurt to Ganpat Lal Mathur with a stick who was a public servant at that time and was acting in the discharge of his duty as such servant. 5. 5. As regards the conviction of the appellant under section 452, IPC it may be observed that there is no evidence from the side of the prosecution that the appellant entered the office of Ganpat Lal Mathur having made preparation for causing hurt to him or for assaulting him or wrongfully restraining him or put him in fear of hurt or of an assault or of wrongful restraint. It appears from the record that the appellant had entered the office of Ganpatlal Mathur to make a request to him for early payment of his unpaid salary. It is only when Ganpat Lal Mathur told the appellant that the salary bill had been objected to and could not be passed without meeting the objections, the appellant got enraged and caused grievous and simple hurts to Ganpat Lal Mathur. For a conviction under section 452, IPC it is necessary to prove that the appellant committed house trespass after making preparation for causing hurt etc. The mere fact that the appellant entered the office and committed assault or caused hurt does not necessarily presuppose such preparation. There must be clear proof of a preparation for causing hurt etc. As there is no such proof on the record, I feel difficulty in maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 452, IPC Consequently, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge under section 452, IPC. 6. As regards the sentence under section 333, IPC it may be observed that it is a bit severe in the circumstances of the case. The appellant has already undergone sentence for a period of about six months. The offence which he committed was not a pre-mediated one. It appears that the appellant was not paid his unpaid salary in the past despite requests made to Ganpat Lal Mathur in this behalf. He went to the office of Shri Ganpat Lal Mathur for making further request for early payment o f his unpaid salary. When Ganpat Lal gave the appellant a reply that there were certain objections raised to his salary bill, an altercation took plaza between the two and in the heat of passion, the appellant all of a sudden made an assault on Ganpat Lal and caused hurt to him. When Ganpat Lal gave the appellant a reply that there were certain objections raised to his salary bill, an altercation took plaza between the two and in the heat of passion, the appellant all of a sudden made an assault on Ganpat Lal and caused hurt to him. In my opinion, the ends of justice would be met, if the term of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded to the appellant under section 333, IPC by the trial court is reduced to a term already undergone by him while maintaining and confirming the sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 7. The result of the above discussion is that partly accept the jail appeal filed by Sukhdeo and while setting aside his conviction and sentence under section 452, IPC confirm and maintain his conviction under section 333, IPC but reduce the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment awarded to him by the trial Judge for the offence under section 333, IPC to a term already undergone by him. However, I maintain and confirm the sentence of fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under section 333, IPC. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in connection with some other case and if he has deposited the amount of fine of Rs. 200/-, imposed on him for the offence under section 333, IPC or has undergone the sentence in default thereof.Appeal Partly accepted. *******