S. AWASTHY, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgplent and finding dated 2nd September, 1988 of the Court of Sri P. N. Parashar, Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, in Sessions Trial No. 38/87 convicting and sentencing the appellants as under :- ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 1/2/1987 in town Nagod a fair (Meta) was to be held in the courtyard of Patvarnath Fort. Temporary electric connection was to be given for that purpose. Sabhajeet Sharma (p. W. 6) was working as a Junior Engineer in M. P. Electricity Board at Nagod. He was looking after the work of giving the temporary electric connection. At about 9 P. M. , it is alleged that appellant Pushpendra Singh had struck on his head with a stick while appellants Arunesh Singh and Gopi were with him. He was taken to the hospital and was examined by Dr. N. K. Sharma (P. W. 5), who found some injuries on his person. The injuries were caused by blunt and hard object. They were simple in nature. His injury report is Ex. P-9. ( 3 ) SABHAJEET Sharma (P. W. 6) lodged the written report, Ex. P-li. He was treated by Dr. Qayamul Haq (P. W. 3) and he opined that the injuries on his person were grievous. On the basis of his opinion, the appellants were tried under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) THE defence of appellant Pushpendra Singh is that C. M. O. Nagod had told him that necessary amount has been deposited for giving temporary connection, but due to the dilatory tactics of the employees connection could not be given till 9 P. M. due to which there was a great agitation in the public who bitterly scolded and abused. They were agitated against the M. P. Electricity Board employees. Someone might have assaulted him but the appellants have falsely been implicated by said Junior Engineer, Sabhajeet Sharma (P. W. 6 ). ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants argued that from the medical report, Ex. P-9, proved by Dr. N. K. Sharma (P. W. 5) it is clear that the injuries on the person of Sabhajeet Sharma (P. W. 6) were simple in nature. Dr. Qayamul Haq (P. W. 3) proved his reports Exs. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants argued that from the medical report, Ex. P-9, proved by Dr. N. K. Sharma (P. W. 5) it is clear that the injuries on the person of Sabhajeet Sharma (P. W. 6) were simple in nature. Dr. Qayamul Haq (P. W. 3) proved his reports Exs. P-4 to P-7 and according to him Sabhajeet Sharma (P. W. 6) had received grievous injuries. In para 4 of his deposition he agrees with the report given by Dr. N. K. Sharma (P. W. 5 ). The reason for holding that the injuries on the person of the victim were grievous is explained in his report (Ex. P-7) which is as under :- The injury sustained on the right temporal region with L. W. contusion and haematoma in the temporal fascia leading to trismus, inability to open mouth and eat normal diet, painful condition persisting for more than twenty days. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to Dr. N. K. Sharma (P. W. 5), as mentioned in para 3 of his deposition MAREEZ HOSH PAR THA SUVEM CHALKAR AAYA THAbut according to Dr. Qayamul Haq (P. W. 3) MUH KHOLNE PAR ASMARTH THA. VEH UTHKAR BAITH NAHI PATA THA. VEH APNE SE CHAL NAHI PATA THA. USKESIR PAR KOICHOTNA BO ISLIYA DEKHREKH PAR RAKHA GAYA THA. This shows that after having known, that Dr. N. K. Sharma (P. W. 5) has mentioned that the injuries were simple in nature, Shri Sabhajeet Sharma (P. W. 6) wanted to make out a case that the injuries were grievous. He complained to Dr. Qayamul Haq (P. W. 3 ). TTKAMJORIVA CHAKKAR KI SIKAYAT KARTA THA. SAMANYA TAUR PAR BHOJAN NAHI KAR PATA THA. ( 7 ) MOREOVER, if a person is detained for twenty days for observation, as deposed to by Dr. Qayamul Conviction Sentence U/s. 333 of the I. P. C. R. I. for three years to each and fine of Rs. 1,000/- to each and in default of fine R. I. for three months to each. Haq (P. W. 3), the injuries do not become grievous because of that ground alone. Observation could have been done within a period of four days and not for twenty days. It is not the case of the prosecution that Sabhajeet Sharma (P. W. 6) was not able to take his meals at all for 20 days. Haq (P. W. 3), the injuries do not become grievous because of that ground alone. Observation could have been done within a period of four days and not for twenty days. It is not the case of the prosecution that Sabhajeet Sharma (P. W. 6) was not able to take his meals at all for 20 days. The injury, in my opinion, does not come within the purview of any of the clauses mentioned under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, no offence under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. ( 8 ) NOW it is to be seen what offence, if any, is made out. Brijnandan Prasad (P. W. 1) is lineman working in the M. P. Electricity Board. He does not support the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Ashok Kumar Sen (P. W. 2) also does not support the prosecution and has been declared hostile. A. L. Singh (P. W. 4) proves that Sabhajeet Sharma was deputed to give temporary connection and was on duty. He was assaulted by someone. This witness has not been declared hostile, but he stated that Sabhajeet Sharma (P. W. 6) was unable to identify the assailants due to darkness. (para 3 of his deposition ). Ganesh Prasad Gupta (p. W. 7) has also been declared hostile. Dal Pratap Jaiswal (P. W. 8) and Babulal Venn a (P. W. 9) have also been declared hostile. R. K. Singh (P. W. 10) was the investigating officer. He proved the reports and the statements recorded by him. Thus there is the solitary evidence of Sabhajeet Sharma (P. W. 6 ). ( 9 ) ACCORDING to Sabhajeet Sharma (P. W. 6) all the three appellants were having Dandas in their hands. Appellant Pushpendra caught hold of his collar and pushed him. Thereafter all the three appellants started assaulting with sticks. According to him, he was discharged by the doctor at Nagod and he advised him complete rest, but he was not satisfied with the treatment; hence he got himself again examined at Satna. He proved his application for sending him to 5atna. He remained in Satna hospital for nearly a month. According to him, he did not know the names of the assailants, but he knew that they were employees of the Municipal Committee. He proved his application for sending him to 5atna. He remained in Satna hospital for nearly a month. According to him, he did not know the names of the assailants, but he knew that they were employees of the Municipal Committee. He was assaulted because he could not give the electric connection till 9 P. M. He docs not know as to how many shops were in Me/a (fair ). He was not directed to give electric connection by 6 P. M. He does not know, if the current due to the temporary connection came into the lines after he had been assaulted. He does not know, if any, offence against him under Sections 323, 294 and 506-B I. P. C. was registered. He does not know if the offence was registered under Crime No. 32/87. He is unable to say as to why the appellant Pushpendra Singh assaulted him. According to him, he was introduced to the appellant Pushpendra Singh about 3 months prior to the incident. But he did not mention his name in first-information-report as he did not know his name. He did not go to identify the appellants at any occasion. He was told the names of the appellants by hostile witnesses: Brijnandan, Dal Pratap, and Ashok Sen. He did not mention in the report the identifying marks of these appellants, but he did mention that the R. I. along with his companions (Municipal Employees) had assaulted him. ( 10 ) FROM the perusal of the first-information-report, it is clear that the other appellants than appellant Pushpendra Singh had not assaulted Sabhajeet Sharma. They were alleged to be present with the assailant. It is unfortunate that in the story put-up before the Court, they were also involved by stating that they too assaulted him with sticks, but there is no such mention in the first information-report against them. The cross-examination was not directed in that direction. However, from the statement of Sabhajeet Sharma (P. W. 6) and injury report, I am not convinced that all the three appellants assaulted him. In my view, offence against appellant No. 1 Pushpendra Singh alone has been made out, which is punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Nos. 2 and 3, viz. However, from the statement of Sabhajeet Sharma (P. W. 6) and injury report, I am not convinced that all the three appellants assaulted him. In my view, offence against appellant No. 1 Pushpendra Singh alone has been made out, which is punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Nos. 2 and 3, viz. Arunesh Pratap Singh and Gopinath are, therefore, acquitted but appellant No. 1 Pushpendra Singh alone is convicted under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 11 ) APPELLANT No. 1 Pushpendra Singh is an employee of the Municipal Committee, Nagod. It appears that there had been some agitation because the temporary electric connection was not given within time. Dissatisfaction led to some heated altercations between the employees of the Municipalities and the shopkeepers, as a result of which appellant No. 1 Pushpendra Singh got irritated and in that heated moment he assaulted Sabhajeet Sharma (P. W. 6), Junior Engineer. It is deplorable on the part of the responsible officer of Municipal Committee to have acted in that manner. But however, it being his first offence, I deem it fit to grant him the probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 12 ) I, therefore, sentence appellant NO. 1 Pushpendra Singh to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Since, no previous conviction is proved against him and regard being had to the age, character and antecedents of appellant No. 1 Pushpendra Singh and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the appellant No. 1 be released on probation of good conduct. Hence, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment,) direct that he be released on his entering into a bond of Rs. 3,000/- (rupees three thousand) with a surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of one year and, in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour. He be released accordingly. ( 13 ) THE appellants are on bail. Their bail-bonds are discharged. The amount of fine deposited by them shall be refunded to them. .