JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated the 12th December, 1977 of the Session judge, Pali, convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence under Section 332 IPC to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine to one and half months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The case relates to the incident which took place on October 30, 1973 at about 8.30 P.M. near the Bus Stand, Sirohi, Police Station, Anadara. The prosecution case, in brief, was that Shri Surendra Pratap Singh, Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, was returning in a Jeep RJW 932 from Mandar after holding a departmental enquiry there. Bhiksingh was the driver of the Jeep. When he was near the Sirohi Bus Stand, Surendra Pratap Singh saw in the a light of the Jeep that a lady was running and crossed the road from the right to the left side and was crying 'MARE RE MARE RE'. The lady was being chased by the appellants. Apprehending that something wrong may happen to the lady, Shri Surendra Pratap Singh sent the driver to protect her. The driver tried to pacify the appellants but they did not pay any heed and rather started an assault on him and snatched his watch and other articles. Shri Surendra Pratap Singh himself reached the spot and after disclosing his identity asked the accused to let the lady go but they started abusing and beat him too. Some villagers in the meantime, arrived at the spot and the accused then fled away towards Pithapma. The first information report of the occurrence was lodged by Bhik Singh at Police Station, Anadara on October 30, 1973 at 9.50 P.M. on which a case under Section 353, 332, 394/34 IPC was registered. The injuries of Shri Surendra Pratap Singh and Bhik Singh were examined by Dr. P.K. Purohit, Medical Officer in-charge, Government Dispensary, Anadara. Five injuries on Shri S.P. Singh and two injuries on Bhik Singh all by blunt object were found on their body by the doctor. The accused were arrested on October 31,1973 1973. On November 5, 1973 the watch was recovered on the information and at the instance of accused Fateh Singh from a 'MAD' near the well Pipaliya in village Pithapur. The accused were arrested on October 31,1973 1973. On November 5, 1973 the watch was recovered on the information and at the instance of accused Fateh Singh from a 'MAD' near the well Pipaliya in village Pithapur. An identification test parade of the accused Mukund Singh, Ganga Singh and Fateh Singh was held by Shri Jagdish Chandra Magistrate, II Class, Sirohi, on Nov. 7, 1973. Witnesses Surendra Pratap Singh and Bhik Singh correctly identified them. Injuries on the accused Jaswant Singh and Mukan Singh were also examined by Dr. P.K Purohit. Jaswant Singh had 7 injuries (all abrasions) and Mukan Singh(one abrsion). After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Bali, who committed them to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, from where the case was transferred to the court of Sessions Judge, Pali charged the accused Fateh Singh under Section 332 and 379 IPC Mukan Singh under Section 332 and 333 IPC and Jaswant Singh and Ganga Singh under Section 332 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the plea of the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As many as 17 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. But the case rest on the evidence of PW 1 Shri Surendra Pratap Singh, Bhik Singh, Driver, PW 12, Jalam Singh, Patwari and P.W.16 Prem Chand, Gram Sewak. The other witnesses, namely, PW 9 Sankaliya, PW 10 Smt. Pepu, PW 11 Smt. Nao and PW 13, Jabar Chand have not supported the prosecution case. PW 7 Dr. Prabhat Kumar proves the injuries of Shri S P. Singh, Bhik Singh as also the injuries of the accused Jaswant Singh and Mukan Singh. PW 8 Dr. B.R. Verma was examined to prove that Shri S.P. Singh had a fracture of the nasal bone. PW I5 Shri Jagdish Chandra proves the test identification proceedings conducted by him and PW 17 Bhikam Chand was the investigating officer. The remaining witnesses were either motbirs or formal witnesses. The accused in their statements under Section 3 i3 Cr. PC denied the prosecution allegations and alleged that they had been falsely implicated. They have examined four witnesses in defence, namely, Malsingh, Babulal Prakesh Chand, and Dr. G.S. Gehlot. Dr. The remaining witnesses were either motbirs or formal witnesses. The accused in their statements under Section 3 i3 Cr. PC denied the prosecution allegations and alleged that they had been falsely implicated. They have examined four witnesses in defence, namely, Malsingh, Babulal Prakesh Chand, and Dr. G.S. Gehlot. Dr. G.S. Gehlot was again examined as a court witness and he deposed that the X-Ray film of S.P. Singh did not reveal a fracture of the nasal bone. 3. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 332 IPC for causing hurt to Shri Surendra Pratap Singh Superintendent of Police, and Bhik Singh, his driver, in the discharge of their duty as public servants. The learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution failed to prove that the watch recovered from the `MAD' near the well of village Pipaliya was in the exclusive possession of accused for the offence under Section 379 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge further held that the injury on the nose of Shri S.P. Singh was not grievous and accordingly acquitted Mukund Singh of the charge under Section 333 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge the appellants have come in appeal to this Court. 4. I have heard Mr. Doongar Singh, counsel for the accused appellants and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Now that the case is 13 years' old, the counsel for the appellants does not challenge their conviction for the offence under Section 332 but has submitted that it is a case where the accused should be given the benefit of probation. 5. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and the relevant evidence of the witnesses; So far as the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 332 IPC is concerned, the same is fully established by the evidence of PW 1 Surendra Pratap Singh, Superintendent of Police and PW 3 Bhiksingh, his driver, who have received injuries in the incident. Their testimony is further supported by PW 12 Jalamsingh Patwari and PW 16 Prem Chand, Gram Sewak, who reached the spot immediately after the incident. The injuries of Shri S.P. Singh and Bhiksingh have been duly proved by the evidence of Dr. P.K, Purohit, Medicial Officer, In-charge, Government Dispensary, Anadara. Their testimony is further supported by PW 12 Jalamsingh Patwari and PW 16 Prem Chand, Gram Sewak, who reached the spot immediately after the incident. The injuries of Shri S.P. Singh and Bhiksingh have been duly proved by the evidence of Dr. P.K, Purohit, Medicial Officer, In-charge, Government Dispensary, Anadara. 1 accept the evidence of these witnesses and concur with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that the accused caused injuries to Shri Surendra Pratap Singh, Superintendent of Police and Bhiksingh, his driver, while they were engaged in the discharge of their official duty as public servants. The accused were chasing a lady who was fleeing and crying MARE RE MARE RE. Shri Surendra Pratapsingh, Superintendent of Police apprehending danger to the lady sent his driver Bhiksingh to protect her but the accused assaulted him. Shri Surendra Pratap Singh himself went to his rescue and asked the accused to resist but they paid no heed and rather beat him too. An offence of voluntarily causing hurt to the public servant to prevent him from discharging his duty as public servant has been fully made out against the appellants and they have been rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. On the question of sentence I agree with the submissions of the counsel for the appellants that the accused are entitled to be released on probation. The incident took place as back as October 30, 1973 and a period of more than 12 years has since passed. The accused are agriculturists. This was their first offence. The injuries caused to Shri Surendra Pratap Singh and Bhiksingh were all simple. The prosecution has not shown why the lady was being chased by the accused. The lady herself has not supported the prosecution. One is left to surmise what actually was the reason for her to run away. Jabar Chand PW 13 has also not supported the prosecution. The accused Jaswant Singh and Mukan Singh themselves received injuries. The injury on the nose of Shri S.P. Singh has been held to be not grievous by the learned Sessions Judge. I do not consider any purpose would now be served in sending the accused to jail after 13 years of the occurrence. The ends of justice would be fully met if the accused appellants are bound down to keep peace and be of good behaviour. I do not consider any purpose would now be served in sending the accused to jail after 13 years of the occurrence. The ends of justice would be fully met if the accused appellants are bound down to keep peace and be of good behaviour. In this view of the matter while maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 332 IPC. I set aside the sentence awarded to them and regard being had to the antecedents of the accused and the circumstances in which the offence was committed, I consider it expedient to release the accused appellants on probation of good conduct. Accordingly, instead of sentencing them at once to any punishment, I direct that the accused appellants may be released on their entering into a bond of Rs. 5000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Pali, to appear and receive the sentence when called upon within a period of 2 years, as the said Sessions Judge may direct and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour.Appeal partly allowed. *******