JUDGMENT R.C. Laboti, J.- l. The accused/appellants have been found guilty of an offence punishable under section 324/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 2. The three accused/appellants along with two others, namely, Hariram and Hiralal, who have been acquitted by the trial Court, were charged for offences punishable under sections 147, 324/149 and 333/149 I.P.C. for forming an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing hurt to Narendrasingh, Nihalsingh and Raghvendrasingh; for causing simple hurt by sharp weapon to Nihalsingh and Narendrasingh and for voluntarily causing hurt to Raghvendrasingh, a public servant, to deter him from his duty. 3. There are only two material facts admitted in the case. Nihalsingh (P.W. 2) and Narendrasingh (P.W. 3) the two eye-witnesses are real brothers and related as brothers-in-law to Raghvendrasingh (P.W. 1). The incident took place at about 11 p.m. on 20-12-1984 at a place in the town of Kailaras where Ramleela was being played and witnessed by a large gathering. 4. The prosecution case is that Raghvendrasingh Bhadoriya (P.W.1) is a Police constable. He was deputed on law and order duty at the site of Ramleela. At about 11 p.m., there was a dispute going on between the five accused persons on one side and Narendrasingh and Nihalsingh on the other, wherein Raghvendrasingh intervened. Accused Ramswaroop, Dataram, Sunderlal and Hiralal were armed with Farsas while accused Hariram was armed with a lathi. Narendrasingh and Nihalsingh suffered simple hurts and Raghvendrasingh also sustained simple injuries at the hands of the accused persons. Raghvendrasingh (P.W. 1) lodged the F.I.R. at 11.45 p.m. at P.S. Kailaras. The three injured were referred for medical examination. Dr. R.P. Agarwal round an incised wound on the right toe, an incised wound on the left palm, an abrasion on the right hand middle finger and a contusion over the left fore-arm lower side, on the person of Raghvendrasingh (P.W. 1) Nihalsingh (P.W. 2) was found to have suffered an incised wound on the right side of the head situated in middle, an abrasion on the right knee joint and a contusion on right elbow. Narendra Singh (P.W. 3) was found to have suffered an incised wound on the left side of head. There was no bony injury. 5. At the trial. needless to say that the two brothers-in-law, namely, Nihalsingh and Narendrasingh did support Raghvendrasingh. Narendra Singh (P.W. 3) was found to have suffered an incised wound on the left side of head. There was no bony injury. 5. At the trial. needless to say that the two brothers-in-law, namely, Nihalsingh and Narendrasingh did support Raghvendrasingh. However, Sharif Khan (P.W. 4) and Sarmanlal (P.W. 6), the two independent eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case in its entirety. They were not hostile, but a reading of their statements shows that they were half-hearted witnesses. 6. The prosecution does not assign any cause for the incident. None has been found by the Court below. The defence of the accused persons was that Ramkatori Bai, wife of Ramswaroop accused had gone to see Ramleela accompanied by her husband and other members of the family. There Raghvendrasingh, Nihal Singh and Narendrasingh were standing drunk near the gate. They teased Ramkatori Bai and pushed her with a Danda. A cry was raised which attracted crowd and the people gave thrashing to the romeos. The accused persons denied having caused any injury to the injured persons. The defence took courage to examine accused Ramswaroop himself on oath as D.W. 1 and thereby enable the prosecution to cross-examine him. Ramkatori Bai (D.W. 2), a rustic lady, also took the witness-stand. Unfortunately, they also did not disclose the whole truth. They did state that Raghvendra Singh and his companions were responsible for teasing Ramkatori Bai and thereby leading to a beating of the teasers at the hands of the people in the crowd, but at the same time concealed the role of the accused persons in the incident. 7. The trial Court found that at the time of the incident Raghvendrasingh (P.W. 1) was not acting as a public servant. It was also found that participation of accused Hariram and Hiralal was not proved in the incident at all. However, the three accused/appellants were found to have caused simple injuries by sharp weapon in furtherance of their common intention. Accordingly, they Were convicted and sentenced, as stated herein-above. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant, has made a very short and simple submission that even on several findings recorded by the trial Court, the offence committed by the accused persons could at the worst to be under section 334/34 I.P.C. and not under section 324/34 I.P.C. as held' by the trial Court. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant, has made a very short and simple submission that even on several findings recorded by the trial Court, the offence committed by the accused persons could at the worst to be under section 334/34 I.P.C. and not under section 324/34 I.P.C. as held' by the trial Court. Though, the learned counsel has carried this Court through the evidence in detail, in order to demonstrate several infirmities in the case for prosecution, but even before doing so he read several findings of the trial Court in support of his submission. I am convinced that the submission has force and must be accepted for the reasons which follow. 9. It will be useful to sum-up a few of the findings, which have been recorded by the trial Court :- (i) the prosecution and the prosecution witnesses have observed complete silence as to the cause which led to the initiation of the incident. The F.I.R. is also silent. This appears to be strange, more so when the F.I.R. was lodged by a Police personnel. The prosecution witnesses are deliberately concealing the initial part of the story; -Para 13. (ii) the clothes of any of the injured were not seized to show that they got blood stains or that Raghvendrasingh was in Police uniform at the time of the incident; -Para 13. (iii) no document has been filed to show that Raghvendrasingh (P.W. 1) was deputed at Ramleela ground on law and order duty, though such documentary evidence was available. This leads to an inference being drawn against the prosecution; -Para 13. (iv) the collective appreciation of the testimony of witnesses examined for both sides does go to show that Ramkatoribai was teased and it was most natural on the part of Ramswaroop to have retaliated at the indecent act of the teasers; - Para 14. (v) the three injured were drunk and not in a position of taking care of themselves. They were beaten by the accused/appellants only with an idea of teaching a lesson; - Para 17 (vi) the presence of accused Hariram and Hiralal at the place of the incident is doubtful and it appears to be an outcome of tendency on the part of the complainant in roping in as many persons as possible. - Para 15-16. They were beaten by the accused/appellants only with an idea of teaching a lesson; - Para 17 (vi) the presence of accused Hariram and Hiralal at the place of the incident is doubtful and it appears to be an outcome of tendency on the part of the complainant in roping in as many persons as possible. - Para 15-16. (vii) the statements of the prosecution witnesses were not promptly recorded during investigation which is an infirmity in the case. -Para 17. 10. Inspite of the abovesaid conclusions, the trial Court turned the table against the accused/appellants on the sole reasoning that whatever might have been done to Ramkatori Bai, the accused/appellants would not have taken the law in their own hands and they should have approached the authorities for legal action. The trial Court held though it is true that the conduct of Raghvendrasingh, Nihalsingh and Narendrasingh was condemnable and that was the root cause of the incident; it is proved that Ramkatori Bai was teased who complained to her husband, and this led to the incident. 11. It is difficult to uphold a conviction under section 324/34 I.P.C. founded on the abovesaid findings. The truth undoubtedly lay somewhere in between the two stories. I would have much appreciated if the accused Ramswaroop and his wife Ramkatori Bai having taken courage of appearing in the witness-box would have told the whole truth with confidence in the Court, that truth would prevail and justice would be done by acceptance of their story, confidence of the Court having been inspired However, no fault can be found with the conduct of the defence when the prosecution has been held guilty of bolstering up the case and concealing the truth specially the root cause of the incident. The benefit of all that was concluded by the trial Court, summed up herein-above, should have been extended to the accused persons, keeping in view the well settled tenets of criminal jurisprudence. The fact remains that a bare reading of section 324 I.P.C. excludes the cases covered by section 334 I.P.C. from the realm of section 324 I.P.C Under section 334 I.P.C. voluntarily causing hurt, but on grave and sudden provocation is punishable though as an offence, but much lesser in gravity than one under section 324 I.P.C. 12. The fact remains that a bare reading of section 324 I.P.C. excludes the cases covered by section 334 I.P.C. from the realm of section 324 I.P.C Under section 334 I.P.C. voluntarily causing hurt, but on grave and sudden provocation is punishable though as an offence, but much lesser in gravity than one under section 324 I.P.C. 12. In K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court had an occasion to lay down the test of "grave and sudden" provocation, though while interpreting the phrase as occurring in section 300 Exception I of I.P.C. light can usefully be drawn, for reading the phrase as occurring in section 334 I.P.C., their Lordships said ;- "The test of "grave and sudden" provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-control. In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first Exception to S. 300." 13. On the facts found what more was needed to make the provocation grave and sudden, A respectable lady, accompanied by her family members including her husband, had gone to Ramleela ground with the pious purpose of witnessing a religious play. No one could have thought that she would be teased in public place in the presence of a large gathering by a few drunk and disorderly, of whom one unfortunately turned out to be Police constable. It has occurred in evidence and found so by the trial Court that not only she was teased but punched in her stomach by a Danda. No fault can be found with Ramswaroop and his family members if they got provoked at the embarrassment of Ramkatori Bai within their presence and when she complained to them. It has occurred in evidence and found so by the trial Court that not only she was teased but punched in her stomach by a Danda. No fault can be found with Ramswaroop and his family members if they got provoked at the embarrassment of Ramkatori Bai within their presence and when she complained to them. In my opinion, provocation was so grave and sudden that having caused simple hurt with sharp weapon, the accused still remained within the net of section 334 I.P.C. and did not slip in the catch-hold of section 324 I.P.C. The right of every respectable citizen to protect the respect and dignity of a female member of their family even by the use of a reasonable force is recognised by the criminal law and must be recognised by this Court as well, to the extent permitted by the scheme of Penal Code. 14. The result is that the appeal is partly allowed The conviction of the accused appellants under section 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. and the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment each is set aside; instead. they are held guilty for an offence under section 334 read with section 34 I.P.C. During the trial they remained in custody for little less than a month and for about 7 days after their conviction by the trial Court. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment to be passed is restricted to the period already undergone by them. The accused/appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.