JUDGMENT A. N. Dikshita, J. - Appellant Mohd. Nafees has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 20101983 passed by Sri H. P. Tripathi, XVI Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 1983 (State v. Mohd. Nafees convicting and sentencing the appellant to 2 years' R. 1. under Section 333 I. P. C., 1 year's R. I. under Section 332 I. P. C. and 6 months' R. I. under Section 504 I. P. C.. and a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 29 Police Act and in default thereof 2 months' R. I. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 2761982 at about 9/9.30) a.m., S. I. Chhotey Lal Chaturvedi was posted at the City Control Room, Kotwah. He was sitting in his office doing Government work. Head Constable No. 84 Sri Sobh Nath Singh was also sitting on the same table. Constable No. 1665 Mohd. Nafees was also posted in the City Control Room. He was drafted for V. I. P. duty to which he declined and wanted the S. I. In charge City Control Room. Sri Chhotey Lal Chaturvedi to send him for medical examination, and make the necessary ravanagi accordingly. SubInspector Sri C. L. Chaturvedi informed Mohd. Nafees that he has been drafted for V. I. P. duty with Sri Ram Narain Pathak, Mthister for State of U. P. It was also pointed out by S. I. Sri C. L. Chaturvedi that it is Sunday and the Police Hospital must be closed and as such no medical examination can be effected. Flaredup on this refusal Mohd. Nafees hurled valgar abuses and gave slap and fists blows. S. I. Sri C. L. Chaturvedi tried to save himself. Personnel of the Police Force present in the Control Room, namely, S. 1. Laxmi Narain Singh, Head Constable Lalta Prasad, H. C. Sobh Nath Singh, Head Constable Hanuman Singh, S. L Gulab Singh, Constable Driver Shitla Prasad and others caught hold of Mohd. Nafees and took him out of the Control Room. The Uniform which was worn by S.I. Sri C. L. Chaturvedi was torn and buttons of the uniform also fell somewhere. A written report of the incident was lodged by S. I. Sri Chhotey Lal Chaturvedi at the Police Station Kotwali on 2761982 at 10.30 a. m. 3. Nafees and took him out of the Control Room. The Uniform which was worn by S.I. Sri C. L. Chaturvedi was torn and buttons of the uniform also fell somewhere. A written report of the incident was lodged by S. I. Sri Chhotey Lal Chaturvedi at the Police Station Kotwali on 2761982 at 10.30 a. m. 3. SubInspector Sri Chhotey Lal Chaturvedi aged about 45 years was sent for medical examination and following injuries were found in his person. Injuries: 1. Tr. Swelling just below right thumb 3 cm x 3 cm tenderness marked Advised Xray. 2. Multiple abrasion in front of chest and neck over an area of 9 cm. x 4 cm. Opinion : injury (1) kept under observation. Injury (2) simple, all injuries caused by hard blunt object, fresh. Lateron Sri C. L. Chaturvedi, S. I. was sent for Xray examination. The Xray report is as under : X ray rt. hand A. D. of O. P. D., Police case from dated 3061982. M. I. : Black mole just above laterla and or left clavicel. Fracture 1st duefocapaul bone of rt. hand". The case was investigated and Mohd. Nafees was tried for offence under Sections 332, 333, 504 and Section 29 of the Police Act. 4. In support of the prosecution case P. VV. 1 (S. I. Sri C. L. Chaturvedi) has corroborated the version in the F .I. R.. He has been put to a searching crossexamination but nothing emerged so as to discredit the testimony of this witness. The incident occurred at 9/9.30 a.m. The First Information Report was lodged at 10.30 a.m. His testimony stood unshaken. The suggestion that has been put to this witness on the face of it is incredible that because this witness had refused leave to appellant for 3 days and in view of the leave granted by Circle Officer, S. I. Sri C. L. Chaturvedi had become annoyed and had implicated the appellant. Such suggestions apparently is unbelievable and deserves to be discarded. The appellant is a constable and a member of the disciplined force. On the day of the incident, he was deputed for V. I. P. duty by P.W. 1, S. L Sri C. L. Chaturvedi. Such suggestions apparently is unbelievable and deserves to be discarded. The appellant is a constable and a member of the disciplined force. On the day of the incident, he was deputed for V. I. P. duty by P.W. 1, S. L Sri C. L. Chaturvedi. It was pointed out to him that Sri Ram Narain Pathak Minister for State of U. P. is in the town and he has been drafted for duty with the said V. I. P. The appellant was deputed for his duty a day in advance but he was stubbornly resisting to join the duty and wanted that this witness P.W. 1 may send him to the police hospital. As it was Sunday, P.W. I Sri C. L. Chaturvedi told him that he would be sent to hospital the next day. Infuriated with such a refusal and to obey to the dictates of the appellant to send him to medical hospital, the appellant abused the senior officer and gave slap and fists blows. In order to save himself P.W. 1, S. Sri I. C. L. Chaturvedi raised his right hand a fists blow was given fracturing the bone of his thumb. Two buttons of the uniform were torn. This witness had received injuries on the right thumb and multiple abrasion in front of chest and neck over area of 9 cm x 4 cm. The evidence of this witness implicitly shows that he was given the abuses. I do not find any fact, or material, which may discredit the truthfulness of the testimony of P.W. 1, S. L, C. L. Chaturvedi. 5. The story of false implication as has been suggested by learned counsel for the appellant is wholly unconvincing. It is not expected that P.W. 1 S.1., C. L. Chaturvedi would go to the extent of 'falsely implicating the appellant in the case because in spite of his refusal to sanction 3 days' casual leave, he got it sanctioned from the Circle Officer. This is the entire defence of the appellant that because of such leave having been granted by Circle Officer, P.W. 1. S. I., C. L. Chaturvedi had become annoyed and wanted to take revenge. There is no dispute that P.W. 1, S. L, C. L. Chaturvedi received injury in his thumb which caused fracture. This is the entire defence of the appellant that because of such leave having been granted by Circle Officer, P.W. 1. S. I., C. L. Chaturvedi had become annoyed and wanted to take revenge. There is no dispute that P.W. 1, S. L, C. L. Chaturvedi received injury in his thumb which caused fracture. P.W. 1, S. I., C. L. Chaturvedi has withstood a quelling crossexamination but nothing could be extracted to discredit his testimony. I do not find any material, as stated above, to discard the testimony of P.W. 1, S. I., C. L. Chaturvedi. 6. P.W. 2, Head Constable, 1456, Kailash Nath had proved the lodging of the First Information Report and preparation of the letter for medical examination. 7. P.W. 3, Constable/Driver Shitla Prasad Shukla has stated that on the day of the incident, i.e., 2761982, he was posted on duly at the Control Room. After "the incident having occurred, P.W. 3 Shitla Prasad Shukla took SubInspector C. L. Chaturvedi to the S. P. (City), then to S. S. P. and thereafter to the residence of D. I. G., where S. P. and S. S. P. were available. It is natural that P.W. 1, S. L, C. L. Chaturvedi had to inform the senior officers about the incident. It is expected of a member of the disciplined force, who has been assaulted by his subordinate to bring the matter first to the notice of the senior officer and that was done. 8. P.W. 4, Head Constable, Shobh Nath Singh has stated that around 9/9.30 a.m. on 2761982, appellant Nafees came to the Control Room and told that he would not go for V. I. P. duty and wanted to go to the hospital for which he wanted ravangi to be made. He has admitted that P.W. 1, S. I., C. L. Chaturvedi told him that the day is Sunday and is a holiday and ravangi would be made tomorrow i.e., Monday. This witness admits that S. I., C. L. Chaturvedi requested him to go for the V. I. P. duty. On this, as has been stated by this witness, applicant became furious and wanted his ravangi for the hospital, to which S. L, C. L. Chaturvedi declined and then a scuffle ensued. 9. This witness admits that S. I., C. L. Chaturvedi requested him to go for the V. I. P. duty. On this, as has been stated by this witness, applicant became furious and wanted his ravangi for the hospital, to which S. L, C. L. Chaturvedi declined and then a scuffle ensued. 9. This witness then says that he went to the Bathroom to urinate and he has not seen any marpit whereupon he was declared hostile and was permitted to be crossexamined by the prosecution. On return from bathroom this witness admits that uniform of S. I., C. L. Chaturvedi was torn and the SubInspector had received injuries on thumb etc. Apparently, this witness on account of his kinship with the appellant is trying to protect the appellant. Such an attitude of this witness deserves to be described. Being a member of the disciplined force, it was expected that he would state facts as happened but he has machinatively tried to shield the appellant. This witness is a Head Constable and was sitting on the table with S. I., C. L. Chaturvedi. No doubt he has declined that he is not remembering whether he gave a statement to the Investigating Officer' that on the refusal of S. L, C. L. Chaturvedi, appellant while hurling abuses gave slap and fists blows to S. L, C. L. Chaturvedi, whereupon all the persons along with this witness took the appellant out of the room. He has categorically admitted that P.W. 1, S. I., C. L. Chaturvedi had received injury on his neck, chest and right thumb and even the button of the uniform were torn. 10. P.W. 5, S. I., Anand Shanker Tiwari is the Investigating Officer. He had investigated the case, whereafter chargesheet was filed. Necessary permission was obtained on 23882 from S. S. P. for the prosecution of the appellant and this order is Ex. Ka 9, He identified the signature of S, S, P, Sri Vijay " Nath Singh, whom he has seen writing and signing. There is nothing in his statement which may discredit its veracity. 11. P.W. 6, S. I. Gulab Bhadauria has fully supported the prosecution case that some altercations were exchanged between the appellant and S. T. C L. Chaturvedi. 12. There is nothing in his statement which may discredit its veracity. 11. P.W. 6, S. I. Gulab Bhadauria has fully supported the prosecution case that some altercations were exchanged between the appellant and S. T. C L. Chaturvedi. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant has been falsely implicated on account of the annoyance of P.W. 1, S. I., C. L. Chaturvedi, because when the P.W. 1, S.T., C.L. Chaturvedi refused leave to him he obtained it from the Circle Officer. Such a defence is incomprehensible because a person, who is need of a leave may not get from his immediate officer and may then have to seek such leave from the higher officer. It has already been shown above that such a defence being wholly unbelievable has to be discarded. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri G. P. Dixit has submitted that there is no other witness to corroborate the state of P.W. 1, S. I.. C. L. Chaturvedi and none of the other witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution has supported the version. I do not find any merit in this submission because it has been shown above that the testimony of P.W. 1 S. I., C. L. Chaturvedi does in spite confidence and it is on the basis of his testimony that the prosecution case itself is believed, It is wellsettled law that the statement of one witness is sufficient and good enough to record conviction. Learned counsel for the appellant has then very vehemently urged that on the day of incident the appellant was a young man of 24 years. On account of the conviction and sentence having been recorded he is to lose his job and as such this court should take a compassionate view in reducing the sentence of 2 years' R. I. to 1 year's R. I. under Section 333 I. P. C. The submission is waying, but it has not to be lost sight of that the appellant is a member of the police force, which is a disciplined force. If a constable which the appellant is, can refuse to obey the commands of the senior officer and when insisted upon to comply with such orders, slaps and fists blows are given then it is not a case where any sympathy or consideration has to be shown. The morale of the force has to be maintained. If a constable which the appellant is, can refuse to obey the commands of the senior officer and when insisted upon to comply with such orders, slaps and fists blows are given then it is not a case where any sympathy or consideration has to be shown. The morale of the force has to be maintained. No doubt the appellant is at the prime of his youth but this does not mitigate the seriousness of the crime. It is also not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that on account of the conviction and sentence, he would be dismissed from the service, but in spite of these considerations, it is not a fit case where any consideration whatsoever may be shown. Let not the day dawn when constables misbehave with their superiors, abuse them and assault them. To maintain law and order is the prime duty of the police force. If persons responsible for maintaining such law and order themselves indulge in its violation, then the very faith of the common man would be shaken. Learned trial court has already taken a lenient view. This is not a fit case for interference with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. 13. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is affirmed. The appellant is on bail . He shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. His bail bonds are cancelled. Appeals dismissed.