K. N. SHUKIA, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Salim has been convicted under section 332 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment. Initially he was charged for au offence under section 333 Indian Penal Code but the learned Session Judge did not accept the prosecution case that the complainant had received grievous hurt. He, therefore, recorded a conviction under section 332 Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) CONSTABLES Gulabchand and Madan Singh were on patrol duty on the night intervening 27th and 28tui April, 1982. They noticed four persons going on the road in a suspicious manner. The constables asked them to stop but those persons continued to walk fast. The constables then overtook them and asked them to follow them to the Police Station. All four persons accompanied the police constables for a short distance but then appellant Salim snatched a patiya (a flat piece of wood) from the hands of his companion and gave a blow with the said patiya on the head of Gulabchand. Thereafter the appellant and one of his companions ran away while two others were taken to the Police Station. Report of the incident was lodged by Gulabchand. He was sent for medical examination and three injuries including one on the head were noted by the doctor concerned. At a subsequent date an X-ray of his finger was taken and it was found to be fractured. ( 3 ) THE appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded that he was falsely implicated. According to him when he and his companions who had returned from Burhanpur were proceeding towards their houses, the constable forcibly seized their luggage and removed Rs. 150/- from their suit-case. The appellant denied that he ever caused any injury to constable Gulabchand. ( 4 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge accepted the testimony of Gulabchand, Madan Singh and Komal Singh which was corroborated by medical evidence. The Judge however held that the appellant had caused only a simple injury. Accordingly, he found the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under section 332 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to four months rigorous imprisonment. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the Court below did not give proper weight to the fact that the prosecution evidence consisted only of interested persons and no independent witness was examined. Accordingly, he found the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under section 332 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to four months rigorous imprisonment. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the Court below did not give proper weight to the fact that the prosecution evidence consisted only of interested persons and no independent witness was examined. He also drew my attention to some discrepancy about seizure of a knife from the possession of the appellants. After examining the record, I find that there is no substance in this arguement. There was nothing to show that constable Gulabchand bore any enmity against the, appellant or had any ulterior motive in falsely implicating him. There is documentary evidence to show that Gulabchand and Madan Singh were sent on patrol duty on the night in question. The entry in the Roznamcha (Ex. P. 11) was proved by head constable Han Prasad (P. W. 11 ). At that hour of night when the constables noticed the appellants and some others moving in suspicious circumstances, they were justified in asking the appellant and his companions to stop and seeing their conduct they were also justified in asking them to accompany them to the Police Station. At this hour of the night no independent witness could be secured. The suggestion that the constables seized a suit case and removed cash there from was totally false. Similarly the discrepancy about the place from where knife was seized is. not very relevant for deciding the guilt of the appellant. There was no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements of Madan Singh and Komal Singh even though both of them are constables. ( 6 ) I, therefore, uphold appellants conviction under section 332 Indian Penal Code as the offence has been proved by the eye-witnesses and also supported by medical evidence. ( 7 ) NEXT question is about sentence. Appellant had been in jail for 20 days after his conviction by the Court below. Offence under section 332 Indian Penal Code is punishable with three years R. I. or with fine. In the instant case since the appellant had been in jail for 20 days and the matter is pending since long time, the sentence awarded to him is modified. The jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 300/- is imposed on the appellant. In the instant case since the appellant had been in jail for 20 days and the matter is pending since long time, the sentence awarded to him is modified. The jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 300/- is imposed on the appellant. In default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. The fine should be paid within a month from today, failing which the court below shall issue a warrant of arrest and consign the appellant in jail. Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence. .