Judgment S.I. Jafri, J. 1. THIS is an appeal preferred by Bhagwati, Dal Chand and Ganga Prasad against their conviction sand sentences recorded by Sri G. S. Sharma, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun by his judgment and order dated 14-5-1977. Bhagwati appellant was convicted under section 452 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years. He was further convicted under section 323/34 IPC and section 32 IPC and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 250/- respectively on the aforesaid two counts. Dal Chand and Ganga Prasad appellants were also convicted under section 323/34 IPC and section 324 or 324/34 IPC and they were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 250/- each under the aforesaid two counts respectively. Along with the appellants aforesaid, Kailash Chand was also prosecuted and tried by the trial court but he was acquitted of the charges. 2. THE case of the prosecution is that Kailash Chand accused was formerly the Head-master of DAV Junior School at Gunnaur. District Budaun while Dal Chand Sharma and Ganga Prasad were Assistant Teacher and clerk in the said school respectively. It is said that on 12-7-1973, accused Kailash Chand, Dal Chand and Ganga Prasad had submitted resignations from their respective posts and their resignations were accepted by the Managing Committee of the school on 16-7-1973. After the [acceptance of their resignations by the Managing Committee, a second throught prevailed on Kailash Chand, Dal Chand and Ganga Prasad. THEy challenged the validity of the order of the Managing Committee accepting their resignations through a civil suit instituted in the court of Munsif at Budaun. However, they failed in their efforts to get a stay order in their favour from the court of Munsif, Budaun. THE said suit was pending on the day of occurrence. THE managing committee of the said school, in the meantime, had appointed Mohd. Salim Khan as the Head Master of the said school vice Kailash Chand on 17-7-1973 and his appointment also received the approval of Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 14-10-1973. However, no appointment was made by the Managing Committee on the posts of Dal Chand and Ganga Prasad. THE managing committee of the said school, in the meantime, had appointed Mohd. Salim Khan as the Head Master of the said school vice Kailash Chand on 17-7-1973 and his appointment also received the approval of Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 14-10-1973. However, no appointment was made by the Managing Committee on the posts of Dal Chand and Ganga Prasad. Kailash Chand, Dal Chand and Ganga Prasad went up in representation to the Basic Shiksha Adhikaril Budaun stating that the resignation had been obtained by the Managing Committee of the school from them under duress and force and on 31-8-197.5, they succeeded in getting an order from Basic Shiksha Adhikari Budaun, direciting the management of the school to permit them to work in the school pending conclusion of the enquiry. However, the managing committee declined permission to the accused to work in the school. The case of the prosecution is that on 22-9-1973 at about 9.45 a. m. the accused Ganga Prasad and Kailash Chand armed with spears, Bhagwati armed with pharsa and Dal Chand with [Lathi intruded into the office of the school. At that time, Rameshwar Singh FW 3, Assistant Teacher of the school was present in the office. The accused by show of force, removed the timetable of the school from the office and tore it to pieces. They demanded the attendance register from Rameshwar Singh and on his refusal to oblige them, they dragged him outside the office and started belabouring him with brickbats and with their respective weapons. On the alarm raised by Rameshwar Singh, another teacher of the school Bharat Singh PW 1 was attracted to the scene of occurrence and on his attempt to intervene, he was also given beating by the accused persons. Thereafter, Mohammad Salim Khan PW 4, Head Master of the School, also rushed to the scene of occurrence along with other teachers and students of the school and on his intervention, Dal Chand delivered a Lathi blow on his head. Thereafter, the accused had made good their escape. 3. A report of the occurrence (Ex-ka-1) was lodged at police station Gunnaur at 9.45 a. m. on 22-9-1973 by Rameshwar Singh PW 3. The head Constable of the police station prepared a chik report on the basis of the report Ex. Ka-1. Thereafter, the accused had made good their escape. 3. A report of the occurrence (Ex-ka-1) was lodged at police station Gunnaur at 9.45 a. m. on 22-9-1973 by Rameshwar Singh PW 3. The head Constable of the police station prepared a chik report on the basis of the report Ex. Ka-1. He also registered a case in the General Diary of the police station under section 308/452/332 IPC against the accused. Thereafter, Bharat Singh, Rameshwar Singh and Mohammad Salim Khan were sent for Medical Examination at the Primary Health Center Gunnaur where they were examined by Dr. Mohan Lal PW 2 between [1 a. m. to 11.20 a. m. the same day. 4. DR. Mohan Lal found the following injury on the person of Rameshwar Singh. 1. A traumatic lacerated wound 2 cm x 0:5 cm x muscle deep left side hand 10 cm above the elbow. Advised X-ray. 2. A lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 Cm akin deep. 3 cm in front of injury no. 1. 3. A lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep back of left upper arm above the elbow. Bharat Singh was also examined by the Doctor and following injuries were found on his person : 1. An incised wound 3 cm x 0.25 cm x skiin deep top of hand. 2 A punctured wound 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm x 0.5 cm back of right ear. 3. A lacerated wound 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm x skin deep above the right eye brow. The Doctor also examined Mohd. Salim Khan and he found following injury on his person. Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm in front of head near the hair-line. 5. RAM Niwas Tyagi PW 5 stated investigation after the registration of the case. He interrogated RAMeshwar Singh,, Bharat Singh and Mohammad Salim Khan and others at the police station. He also inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared site-plan Ex-ka-7. He had recovered torn pieces of school time-table and some blood-stained brick:-bats lying out-side the office of the school which were collected by him, and he prepared recovery memo Ex. ka-9. Before conclusion of the investigation, RAM Niwas Tyagi PW 3 was transferred and he was succeeded by Karan Singh who submitted charge-sheet Ex. ka-8 against the accused in the court on 13-11-1973. 6. ACCUSED Ganga Prasad lodged his report Ex. ka-9. Before conclusion of the investigation, RAM Niwas Tyagi PW 3 was transferred and he was succeeded by Karan Singh who submitted charge-sheet Ex. ka-8 against the accused in the court on 13-11-1973. 6. ACCUSED Ganga Prasad lodged his report Ex. kha-3 regarding the occurrence at police station Kotwali, Budaun on 22-9-1973 at 7.37 p. m. against Jai Prakash Agarwal, Narendra Prakash Arya, Rameshwar Singh PW 3, Mohd. Salim Khan PW 4 and Bharat Singh PW 1. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the Head constable of police station Kotwali prepared a chik report and he also registered a case against the aforesaid persons under sections 147, 336 and 504 IPC before lodging of the aforesaid report at police station Kotwali. Ganga Prasad accused got himself medically examined at 6,30 p. m. in the District Hospital Budaun. Dr. V. K. Chopra found the following injuries on his person. 1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep left by upper 1/3 anterially. 2. Abrasion 4 cm x 1/2 cm on the right: forearm lower 3rd. 3. Contusion 1 cm x 1/2 cm on the left thumb in the middle dorsally. 4. Complained of pain on the left sholder. According to the opinion of the Doctor the injuries were simple. On the basis of the report of Ganga Prasad, the accused of this case were also committed to the court of sessions to stand their trial in the cross- case. It appears that the case against Bharat Singh, Rameshwar Singh and Mohammad Salim Khan and others registered on the basis of the report of Ganga Prasad at police station Kotwali was dismissed by the court of sessions and Bharat Singh and others were acquitted. 7. THE prosecution has examined Bharat Singh PW 1 Rameshwar Singh PW 3, Mohammad Salim Khan PW 4 as eye witnesses of the occurrence in support of its case, 8. RAMESHWAR Singh PW 1 has narrated the entire prosecution case in detail. He is also an injured witness. His: version had received full corroboration from the medical testimony produced in this case. He deposed that at about 9 a. m. on 22-9-1973 when he was inside the office of DAV School, Gunnaur, the appellants accompanied by Kailash Chand arrived there and Kailash Chand tore the school's time table. He is also an injured witness. His: version had received full corroboration from the medical testimony produced in this case. He deposed that at about 9 a. m. on 22-9-1973 when he was inside the office of DAV School, Gunnaur, the appellants accompanied by Kailash Chand arrived there and Kailash Chand tore the school's time table. He also demanded the attendance register and other papers which he declined] to supply and upon his refusal, they began to assault him with their weapons. He raised hue and cry whereupon Bharat Singh, a teacher of the school was attracted to the scene of occurrence but he too was assaulted. Thereafter, when Mohammad Salim Khan PW 4, head master of the school arrived there along with other school teachers and students and protested against the conduct of the accused persons, he was also delivered a Lathi blow on his head by accused Dal Chand. The accused persons, then, fled away from the scene of occurrence. After the occurrence he went to the police station Gunnaur accompanied by the aforesaid two injured persons and lodged his report at 9.45 a. m. Thereafter, all the three injured including him, were sent for medical examination at the primary Health Centre Gunnaur, where their injuries were examined. The statement of RAMESHWAR Singh is substantially corroborated by the statements of Bharat Singh PW 1 and Mohd. Salim Khan PW 4. I, thesefore, hold RAMESHWAR Singh as a reliable witness. Both Bharat Singh and Mohammad Salim Khan have narrated the prosecution case in detail. They are also natural witnesses and their evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence. Nothing material has been brought on the record by the defence to discredit their evidence, Therefore, I hold their evidence reliable. Their evidence also inspires confidence. 9. THE accused also examined Mohan Lal DW 1, Jagdish Chandra DW 2, Balram DW 3, Hotam Singh DW 4- and Brij Nandan Gupta DW 5. Out of the above defence witnesses, Jagdish Chandra was examined as an eye witness of the occurrence whereas Balram was examined in support of alibi of Dal Chand appellant and rest of the defence witnesses are of formal nature. 10. Out of the above defence witnesses, Jagdish Chandra was examined as an eye witness of the occurrence whereas Balram was examined in support of alibi of Dal Chand appellant and rest of the defence witnesses are of formal nature. 10. JAGDISH Chandra DW 2 stated that while passing by the side of Gunnaur school, he saw that brick-batting was being exchanged between the accused on the one hand and Bharat Singh and Rameshwar Singh and others on the other hand. He admitted in his cross-examination that he was employed in a school which lies at a distance of 2.3 miles from Gunnaur and on that day he was not on leave from his school. Under the circumstances, his presence at the place of occurrence which lies at a distance of 2.3 miles away from his own school during working hours is highly doubtful. Besides, he is not named in the First Information: Report Ex. kha-3 lodged by accused Ganga Prasad. He also does not appear to be a reliable witness and the trial Court has given cogent reasons in rejecting Ms testimony. Balram DW 3 stated that Dal Chand accused belongs to his village (Bandarai) which lies at a distance of about 6.7 Kaus (12-14 miles) from Gunnaur. He deposed that accused Dal Chand had taken his food at his house in his village between 9-10 a. m. on EKADSHI day i. e. on the day of occurrence due to Shradh Ceremony of his ancestors. However, he could not tell the name of his ancestor whose Shradh had been performed by him on that day and instead, he stated that shradh of all his ancestors is performed by him on single day (EKADSHI). He also admitted in cross-examination that accused Dal Chand was never invited by him earlier for shradh except that on one occasion. It may also be noted that Dal Chand had also not stated in his statement under section 313 CrPC that he had taken food at the house of Balram DW 3 on the day of occurrence. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to believe that accused Dal Chand had takes food on the day of occurrence between 9 or 10 a. m. at the house of Balram DW 3 due to shradh ceremony of the ancestors of Balram. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to believe that accused Dal Chand had takes food on the day of occurrence between 9 or 10 a. m. at the house of Balram DW 3 due to shradh ceremony of the ancestors of Balram. It appears that Balram is a got-up witness who was introduced just to buttress the defence version and under the circumstance, no reliance can be placed on his evidence. 11. THE sessions Judge upon over all considerations of the evidence in the case as a measure of abundant caution, gave benefit of doubt to accused Kailash Chand and acquitted him of the charges framed against him. 12. IN this, the FIR lodged by Rameshwar Singh PW 3 was very prompt and Rameshwar Singh's oral testimony also found ample corroboration from the said report. Besides, there is the corroborative evidence of Bharat Singh PW 1 and Mohd. Salim Khan PW 4 who are also injured witnesses. They are also reliable. The accused Ganga Prasad also lodged a report at police station Kotwali Budaun at 7.30 p. m. on 22-9-1973 which is apparently highly belated and it appears that it was lodged in order to counter-act the case registered against him at police station Gunnaur at 9.45 p. m. by Rameshwar Singh PW 3. The injuries on the person of Ganga Prasad examined by Dr. V. K Chopra are of a very minor nature and the possibility that those injuries were either self- inflicted or manufactured by Ganga Prasad, cannot be ruled out. Under the circumstance, no credence can be placed on the defence version as stated in the report lodged by Ganga Prasad. 13. THE learned sessions judge has assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the evidence of Jagdish Chand DW 2 and Balram DW 3. I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the guilt arrived at by the learned sessions Judge against the appellants. 14. IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above the charges against the appellants are fully established by the evidence of Bharat Singh PW 1, Rameshwar Singh PW 3 and Mohd. Salim Khan PW 4 and therefore, the conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial court deserved to be affirmed. 14. IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above the charges against the appellants are fully established by the evidence of Bharat Singh PW 1, Rameshwar Singh PW 3 and Mohd. Salim Khan PW 4 and therefore, the conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial court deserved to be affirmed. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently urged that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1973 i. e. about 13 years have since rolled by and Bhagwati appellant has since settled in his life and as such, a lenient view may be taken. It was also submitted that Bhagwati appellant is not a previous convict. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that Bhagwati Prasad may be sentenced to fine in lieu of sending him to Jail, otherwise his family members shall be on the brink of starvation. 15. BHAGWATI appellant has no doubt committed a very serious crime by trespassing into an educational institution and after having made preparations, he had caused hurt to the teachers of the school, but in view of the fact that occurrence had taken place about 13 years back, I feel inclined to take a soft and lenient view in the matter and set aside the sentence of two years imposed on him under section 452 IPC by the learned sessions judge. He has already served out seven day's sentence in Jail as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant. I affirm the conviction of BHAGWATI appellant under section 452 IPC.