M. D. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the respective convictions and sentences of the six appellants-accused. The principal appellant-accused Bajrang, on his conviction under section 333 of the I. P. C. , has been sentenced to two years R. T. and, under section 148 of the I. P. C. , to six months R. I. Other three appellants-accused Dadua, Lokram and Gyanchand on their conviction under section 333 read with section 149 of the I. P. C. , have each been sentenced to six months R. I. and under section 147 of the I. P. C. , to two months R. I. Remaining two accused Liladhar and Goverdhan on their convictions under section 333 read with section 149 of the I. P. C. and under section 147 of the I. P. C. , have each been released on probation of good conduct, instead of being sentenced to any term of imprisonment. Substantive sentences of imprisonment of the respective accused persons have been directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) WITH regard to a small hotel situated at the bus-stand of village Chabi, there was some rancour and dispute between the accused Gyanchand and the prosecution witness Bassulal for some time past. The accused Lokrams hotel was also closed by. At about 9. 00 p. m. or so on 3rd December, 1976, hot words and abuses were being exchanged between Bassulal on the one hand and the accused Gyanchand and his other supporters. viz. , the remaining appellants-accused, on the other. Ganga Ram Dhruwe, Station Officer of the Police Station Mohgaon, while proceeding to the village Sarsi by a passenger bus, happened to see some quarrel near Lokrams hotel when the bus in which he was traveling stopped for a while at the bus-stand, which was closed to the place of incident. Seeing the crowd and the quarrel near the hotels, the Sub-Inspector Dhruwe reached the place and tried to defuse the situation by refraining the quarreling parties from hurling mutual abuses. The principal accused Bajrang consequently got enraged due to this uncalled for interference and brought out a iron rod from inside Lokrams hotel and assaulted the Sub-Inspector with the same, resulting in certain injuries to him. Other appellants-accused were equally stated to have brought some lathis at the same time and some of them were alleged to have assaulted the Sub-Inspector with the same. Other appellants-accused were equally stated to have brought some lathis at the same time and some of them were alleged to have assaulted the Sub-Inspector with the same. Certain persons present on the spot intervened. The Sub-Inspector Dhruwe was taken back to the Police-Station Mohgaon in the bus and he lodged the report. His injuries were got medically examined. After due investigation, all the appellants-accused were put up for trial for the particular offences, of which, they have been convicted. ( 3 ) THE appellants-accused Dadua, Liladhar and. Goverdhan took the plea of alibi and claimed to be falsely implicated. The remaining appellants-accused, however, contended that they had simply intervened in the incident when the Sub-Inspector Dhruwe in a intoxicating condition was assaulting Gyanchand and it was during this intervention that the Sub Inspector, due to his heavy drunken condition, had fallen down sustaining certain injuries. No evidence was adduced in defence. ( 4 ) THE trial Court disbelieved the respective defence stand of the accused persons. On the strength of prosecution evidence, it was held that all the appellants-accused had constituted themselves in an unlawful assembly and at the relevant time the accused Bajrang was armed with a iron rod and the rest with lathis. It was further held that only the accused Bajrang had assaulted and inflicted injuries on the person of Sub-Inspector Dhruwe and the rest of the accused persons, though present with their lathis at the relevant time, had not used, at all, their lathis for any assault on the Sub-Inspector. Consequently, all the appellants accused were convicted to the extent as stated at the outset. Two of them were released on the probation of good conduct and the rest were sentenced to the imprisonment. Hence, now their present appeal. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants-accused has candidly stated at the outset that he docs not challenge the conviction of the principal accused Bajrang for commission of the offence punishable under section 333 of the I. P. C. However, it is pressed that the sentence, as awarded in this regard is quite heavy deserving thus, to be slashed reasonably. His conviction however, under section 148 I. P. C. and the convictions of the rest under section 147 I. P. C. have been vehemently challenged, inasmuch as it is stated that the prosecution evidence does not disclose the constitution of any unlawful assembly for the avowed purpose of any assault on the Police Sub- Inspector. It is also argued that the rest of the appellants accused are not liable to be convicted under section 333 with the aid of section 149 of the I. P. C. , inasmuch as neither was there any unlawful assembly nor were these other appellants accused actuated with any common criminal object, in prosecution of which, any member might have committed any criminal act of assault. ( 6 ) NOW, taking up at first the case of the appellant-accused Bajrang, it may be stated that his conviction under section 333 of the I. P. C. has not been challenged now. Suffice to say that there is more than sufficient consistent and corroborative evidence to indubitably establish that this accused had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the police-servant viz, the police Sub-Inspector Dhruwe to deter him from discharging his duties as a public servant. ( 7 ) SO far as the offences under section 148 of the I. P. C. against Bajrang and under section 147 of the I. P. C. against the rest are concerned convictions regarding the same do not appear to be justified. The trial Court in paras 8 to 9 of its judgment had already disbelieved the part of the prosecution evidence that except for the principal accused Bajrang, the rest of the appellants- accused had not assaulted the police Sub-Inspector at all, and that they were simply present at the place with their lathis in hands. It is now to be seen whether all these appellants-accused together had constituted any unlawful assembly with any common object to commit any of the five criminal acts as enumerated in section 141 of the I. P. C. It may here be stated that the prosecution evidence in this regard is highly discrepant and it clearly appears that but for the accused Bajrang, others have been unduly roped in by the ingenuity of the over zealous police investigations agency, due to the fact of a police officer being involved as a victim in the incident. Such over zealousness is clearly disserted in the oral testimonies of the Police Constable P. W. 2 Naraindas and the victim P. W. 8 Sub-Inspector Dhruwe, who are not found to be satisfactorily corroborated by other independent witnesses. The evidence of other witnesses of the incident are P. W. 9 Bassulal, P. W. 10 Lahardas and P. W. 11 Said Hafiz Ali. Now, P. W. 1 Bassulal is obviously a highly interested witness, inasmuch as he has positive animus against the appellant-accused Gyanchand and the other accused persons, who were his supporters. From his oral evidence, it is found that all the accused persons were already present from before at Lokrams hotel before the said Sub-Inspector had arrived at the scene. He, however, in his anxiety to rope in all the appellants-accused, has sufficiently embellished his statement by deposing that Bajrang had exhorted the rest of the appellants-accused to bring a rod which was brought by Lokram and handed over to him and the rest also brought their lathis where after all the appellants-accused together had made concerned assaults on the Police Sub-Inspector Dhruwe (Para 4 and 5 of the P. W. 9 ). Thus, Bassulals evidence does not inspire much credence, so far as the involvement of the rest of the appellants- accused is concerned. ( 8 ) IF one carefully scrutinizes the evidence of P. W. 10 Lahardas and P. W. 11 Said Hafiz Ali, it would be apparent that only Bajrang had brought the iron road with intent to assault the police Sub- Inspector, but rest of the appellants-accused had not brought the lathis either on their own violation or on the incitement of Bajrang, and that too in order to assault the police Sub-Inspector. These other appellants-accused are not found to have taken part in the assault of the police Sub- Inspector or in the use of any criminal force against him. The evidence is also not credit-worthy that they had gone inside Lokrams hotel and had come out with the lathis after the arrival of the Sub-Inspector Dhruwe on the scene. It would well be that during the mutual abuses between Bassulal and Gyanchand, these other appellants accused might have already remained at the place with their lathis in their hands; either for their own self-defence or in anticipation of any possible future trouble between these hotel keepers. It would well be that during the mutual abuses between Bassulal and Gyanchand, these other appellants accused might have already remained at the place with their lathis in their hands; either for their own self-defence or in anticipation of any possible future trouble between these hotel keepers. The fact that the prosecution evidence regarding involvement of the other accused persons is embellished and concocted is clear from the material circumstances that even in the F. I. R. of the Police Sub-Inspector Dhruwe, there is no mention that the other appellants accused were already present on the scene, from the contrary to the prosecution evidence that these appellants accused had arrived at the scene armed with lathis only after the arrival and intervention of the police Sub-Inspector Dhruwe at the scene of occurrence. Considering all this material on record and the glaring discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, I am clearly of the opinion that there was no unlawful assembly at the relevant time for the other accused person barring Bajrang, were actuated with any common object for any assault on the police Sub-Inspector. On the contrary, it clearly appears that these other appellants-accused had no idea in the least that Bajrang would come out with a iron rod and would dare to assault the police Sub-Inspector. These other appellants-accused, therefore, do not appear to have any common criminal object with that of the principal accused Bajrang. Therefore, these other accused persons viz. Dadua, Lokram, Liladhar, Goverdhan and Gyanchand deserve to be acquitted not only of the offence punishable under section 147 of the I. P. C. but also of the offence punishable under section 333/149 of the I. P. C. There being no unlawful assembly, the accused Bajrang deserves to be acquitted of the offence punishable under section 148 of the I. P. C. ( 9 ) IN the result, thus, the appeal is partially allowed. Setting aside the order of convictions of the appellants-accused Dadua, Lokram, Gyanchand, Liladhar and Goverdhan under sections 147 and 333/149 of the I. P. C. and also setting aside the order of sentence in this regard against Dadua, Lokram and Gyanchand and the order of release on probation of good-conduct with regard to Liladhar and Goverdhan, it is ordered instead that these five appellants-accused be and are acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 147 and 333/149 of the I. P. C. ( 10 ) SETTING aside the order of conviction and sentence of the principal accused Bajrang under section 148 of the I. P. C. he is acquitted of the said offence. However, conviction of the appellant- accused Bajrang under section 333 of the I. P. C. , as passed by the trial Court is maintained. Considering the circumstances of the incident, the sentence of imprisonment as awarded against him in this regard deserves to be suitably modified. It is hence, ordered in modification of trial Courts order of sentence that the accused Bajrang be and is now sentenced to six months R. I. and to pay the fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand) and in default of fine to undergo eighteenth months R. I. Out of the fine, if realized Rs. 500/- (five hundred) be paid to the police Sub-Inspector P. W. 8 Ganga Ram Dhruwe, by way of compensation in accordance with section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This appellant accused Bajrang, who is on bail, do immediately surrender to his bail to undergo the sentence of imprisonment as now awarded and to further undergo the sentence of imprisonment, in case the fine amount is not paid forthwith. Bonds of the rest of the appellantsaccused stand discharged. Appeal dismissed. .