JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1976 under his judgment dated November 3, 1976 convicted the accused appellant Kuber u/s 333 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is this : Nanji PW 2 was posted as Chowidar in the Irrigation Department and at the relevant time, was working at Gumanpura dam, On 21-2-1976, at about 8.00 a.m., when he was on duty and was keeping a watch over the canal, it is alleged that the accused appellant had obstructed the flow of water in the canal by placing a stone therein and was taking water in his fields. When Nanji asked the accused appellant not to do so, it is alleged that the accused appellant, who had a spade with him, gave blows with it to Nanji PW 2 who at the relevant time, was discharging his official duties. Nanji lodged a report Ex. P.2 before the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation, Dungarpura, on the same day and the Assistant Engineer forwarded the report to the SH.O., Dungarpur where a case was registered and investigation was set in motion. 3. Dr. K.H. Godha, PW 6 was posted as Medical Jurist, General Hospital, Dungarpur, on February 21, 1976 and on that day at about 5.00 p.m., he examined the injuries of Nanji and found the following injuries - 1. Diffused tender swelling on the cripitis on the back and front of the left side of the chest. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury was grievous and was received within a duration of 8 to 12 hours. The injury report Ex P. 3 was prepared immediately and the injured Nanji was admitted in the hospital and on the next day, x-ray of his chest and left shoulder joint were taken in the presence of Dr. Goda. On reading the x-ray, Dr. Godha found that there was fracture of 6th and 7th ribs of left scalupa below the vlenoid cavity. 4. The accused was arrested and a charge under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code was read over and explained to him on August 10, 1976, The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Goda. On reading the x-ray, Dr. Godha found that there was fracture of 6th and 7th ribs of left scalupa below the vlenoid cavity. 4. The accused was arrested and a charge under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code was read over and explained to him on August 10, 1976, The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused stands on a bare plea of denial. He set up a case that Nanji Chowkidar demanded from every cultivator of agricultural land some wheat but all have denied not to give anything to Nanji and, therefore, he has been falsely implicated. The defence of the accused did not find favour with the learned trial court who placing reliance on the prosecution evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. 5. There is sufficient material on record that at the relevant time, Nanji PW 2 was a chowkidar in the Irrigation Department and his duties were to keep a watch on the canal and to see that none takes water from it. Besides the statement of Nanji PW 2, to this effect, there is statement of Gur Prasad Mathur PW 1, who was the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Dungarpur at the relevant time. He has proved the report Ex. P 3 of Nanji and has stated that at the relevant time, Nanji was deputed at Gumanpura tank as a Chow kidar and his duties were to keep a watch on the canal and to see that no obstructions to the flow of water in the canal are made by anyone and to forbid them from doing so. Mr. Mathur has further stated that on 21-2-1976, Nanji came to his office and gave a report Ex. P 2 to him which was forwarded by him to Police Station, Dungarpur. The learned advocate also does not challenge the finding of the trial court that at the relevant, Nanji PW 2 was a public servant and was discharging his official duties. 6. Now, the question is, as to whether, as held by the trial court, the accused is the author of the grievous injury by a spade, a sharp edged weapon, to Nanji PW 2. 6. Now, the question is, as to whether, as held by the trial court, the accused is the author of the grievous injury by a spade, a sharp edged weapon, to Nanji PW 2. Nanji has stated that when at about 8.00 a.m. on the relevant date, he was going towards Mukarwada village, he saw that the accused and his father had obstructed the flow of water in the canal by placing a stone and they were irrigating their own fields. He asked the accused that as per rules, none could obstruct the flow of water and that the accused should remove the stone placed by him in the canal. He states that at his insistence, the accused removed the stones from the canal and the water thereafter flowed in a normal way. When he was going, the accused came from behind and gave a blow by his spade to him. No doubt, he has stated that the accused gave 10 or 15 blows, which appears to be exaggerated statement, but there is no reason to disbelieve his statement that the accused gave a blow by spade to him. He denied the suggestion of the accused that he takes wheat from every agriculturist and because the accused did not give him wheat as demanded by him, he has been falsely implicated. Dala PW 3, Sarpanch of Gumanpura Panchayat has stated that one person belonging to Sunderpur came to him in the morning and told him that Nanji was lying near the canal. He went towards that side and saw Nanji lying there. Nanji told him that it was the accused who had caused him an injury when he asked the accused as to why he had obstructed the flow of water in the canal. It was Dala PW 3 who scribed the report Ex. P 2 which was sent to the Assistant Engineer. A similar statement has been made by Sona PW 4 who was Mistry at the relevant time in the Irrigation Department. As already stated earlier, Dr. Godha on examination found a grievous injury caused by a blunt weapon and grievous in nature. P 2 which was sent to the Assistant Engineer. A similar statement has been made by Sona PW 4 who was Mistry at the relevant time in the Irrigation Department. As already stated earlier, Dr. Godha on examination found a grievous injury caused by a blunt weapon and grievous in nature. Looking to the fact that the incident took place at 8.00 a.m. when Nanji asked the accused not to obstruct the flow of water and there being no material on record that there was any other witness present, I find no reason to disbelieve the statement of Nanji who had no ill will or enmity. Nanji is corroborated by the medical evidence and by the fact that no sooner other persons reached there, he named the accused appellant as his assailant. The report Ex P 2 was also lodged the same day in which the accused is named as the author of injury to Nanji PW 2. 7. Thus, the accused respondent has been rightly convicted under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code. On x-ray the injury was found to be grievous. The accused, therefore, voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Nanji PW 2, a public servant, in the discharge of his duties as such. 8. But the sentence appears to be excessive. 9. I will, therefore, partly allow this appeal. The conviction of the accused appellant under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and looking to the fact that the occurrence took place with a public servant who was discharging his duties and the circumstances not being such that the case of the accused should be dealt with either under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the provisions of Probation of Offenders' Act, I sentence the accused appellant to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, the accused-appellant shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The accused is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds forthwith, failing which, the trial court shall take steps to apprehend the accused, so that he undergoes the sentence awarded or any remaining part thereof.Appeal Partly ALlowed. *******