Judgment :- As fallout of a misfired love-affair, two persons who were not parties in the affair have become the sufferers. Those two convicted and sentenced under section 332 and 342 of the IPC. As the conviction and sentence was confirmed in appeal, they have now come in revision. One Beena is the heroine and Jalaludeen is the hero of the romantic adventure. Petitioners are brothers-in-law of Beena (as they have married her elder sisters). Petitioners were charged sheeted by the police on an incident which took place as incidental to the said affair. They were convicted by a judicial magistrate of first class and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months respectively under each count. 2. Background of the case is the following : Jalaludeen, who was a divorcee fell in love with Beena. A registered instrument, signed by both, was executed to perpetrate the love affair. But the elders of Beena's family stoutly resisted the affair and they prevented her to be at large. Thereupon, Jalaludeen filed Habeas Corpus petition in this Court in which 1st accused was one of the respondents. This Court directed notice to be served on the 1st accused through a special messenger. P.W. 1 (peon of the High Court) was deputed for the purpose. On 20-3-1992, P.W. 1 went to the house of the 1st accused during noon hours accompanied by one Sivapradad (P.W. 2) who is a friend of Jalaludeen. Prosecution version is that both accused together thrashed P.W. 1, tore off the notice given by him and took him into a room wherein he was confined for about fifteen minutes. P.W. 1 was rescued only when the police arrived. P.W. 1 went to police station and lodged First Information Statement. He was then sent to the local Government Hospital where P.W. 3, Doctor Unnikrishnan, noticed some abrasions on his knee joints and inflammation on the abdomen and chest. 3. Prosecution version was spoken to by P.Ws 1 and 2. Though other eye witnesses did not support it, the two courts below placed full reliance on their testimony. He was then sent to the local Government Hospital where P.W. 3, Doctor Unnikrishnan, noticed some abrasions on his knee joints and inflammation on the abdomen and chest. 3. Prosecution version was spoken to by P.Ws 1 and 2. Though other eye witnesses did not support it, the two courts below placed full reliance on their testimony. The defence version is that P.W. 2 went to accused's house along with P.W. 1 for the sinister motive of delivering a letter to Beena who was residing with her sisters in the said house; when the aforesaid design was known to the neighbours they rushed to the scene; they could intercept only P.W. 1 as the other man fled from the scene, 1st accused brought the police to the scene. Accused never believed that P.W. 1 was deputed by the High Court. They further said that the entire shape of the story was restructured when police came to know that P.W. 1 was deputed by the High Court to serve a notice on A1. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners made a plea that the whole evidence may be re-evaluated as the counsel entertains a feeling that lower courts would have attached more seriousness to the incident than what is due on account of the involvement of a messenger deputed by the High Court. Learned counsel pointed out that the extent of the sentence awarded by the lower courts is indicative of the aforesaid approach of the courts below. However, I feel that if the conviction has to be upheld as for the offence under S. 332 of the Penal Code, the sentence awarded is only condign in this case in consideration of the deterrent factor. 5. Be that as it may, I heard arguments at length and went through the entire evidence. I am not persuaded to interfere with the findings on facts to the extent that both accused assaulted P.W. 1 and forcibly confined him in a room until police arrived at the scene. 6. However, the more important question is whether S. 332 of the Penal Code is attracting on the facts of the case. It is to be mentioned right now that if accused knew that P.W. 1. was deputed by the High Court to serve the notice then there is no escape from conviction under section 332 of the Penal code. 7. However, the more important question is whether S. 332 of the Penal Code is attracting on the facts of the case. It is to be mentioned right now that if accused knew that P.W. 1. was deputed by the High Court to serve the notice then there is no escape from conviction under section 332 of the Penal code. 7. The linchpin of the offence (under S. 332) is intention to cause hurt to a public servant qua a public servant in the discharge of his public duty. The word "voluntarily" is used in S. 332 in order to emphasise the point that the offender should have caused hurt intending that such hurt should be caused to a public servant as such and to prevent him from doing his duty. "Voluntarily" is defined in S. 39 of the Penal Code as an act done to cause the effect whereby the doer intended to cause that effect, (or he knew or had reason to believe that the effect would be that). The word is given a peculiar meaning which is different from the widely understood ordinary meaning of it. The Word "voluntarily" is thus to be understood in relation to the causation of effects and not to the doing of acts from which those effects result. Hence if the accused were unaware that the person whom they confined was a public servant the offence under S. 332 is not attracted (vide King Emperor v. Kishan Lal AIR 1924 ALL 645 : (1925 (26) Cri LJ 501). The Supreme Court has observed in D. Chattaiah v. State of A.P., AIR 1978 SC 1441 : (1978 Cri LJ 1473) that intention of the wrong doer to cause hurt to a public servant is the substantial ingredient in the offence under S. 332 of the Penal Code. The position therefore is that if the offender did not reasonably believe that the victim is a public servant or that if he bona fide believed that the claim made by the victim to be a public servant could be untrue, then the act is bereft of the aforesaid ingredient and the offence would plummet to S. 323 of the Penal Code if simple hurt was caused. 8. 8. There are broad circumstances in this case to entertain a reasonable doubt that accused would not have believed P.W. 1's claim to be the messenger deputed by the High Court. Accused would have bona fide believed that P.W. 1 went there only to assist P.W. 2 for accomplishing the sinister motive of transmitting a letter to Beena. I shall enumerate those circumstances hereunder. 9. Ext. D3 is a letter written by one Shaji who is admittedly the close friend of Jalaludeen. It was written at Ernakulam on 19-3-1992 urging Beena to be ready to come to the High Court and to say that she was married to Jalaludeen. Beena (D.W. 1) gave evidence that Ext. D3 letter was given to her by P.W. 2 on the same day noon. That version of Beena must, in all probabilities, be true. Jalaludeen and his friend Shaji (who wrote the letter) certainly would have decided to see that somehow or other Ext. D3 letter should reach Beena at least on the 20th itself. They would have entrusted it to P.W. 2. I have no doubt that P.W. 2 had succeeded in the task as Ext. D3 was produced by Beena herself in court. Very probably, accused would have understood that it was P.W. 2 who managed to deliver the letter to Beena despite to guard made by them around her. 10. Even if P.W. 1 had told them that he was a messenger from the High Court, there were reasons for the accused not to believe it. P.W. 1 admitted that he did not show his identity card to the accused though he had such a card with him then. P.W. 1 further admitted that seal of the High Court was not legibly seen affixed on the notice. The evidence is that when 1st accused looked at the notice he openly asked why there was no seal on it. It shows that accused did not believe that the notice was issued by the High Court. P.W. 1 would not have handed over the notice to the 1st accused because P.W. 1 produced the notice and its duplicate to the Sub-Inspector of Police on the same day. Accused would have really feared that Jalaludeen and his henchmen were trying to abduct Beena from the house. This can be discerned from two letters (Exts. D4 and D5) which Jalaludeen had sent to D.W. 2. Accused would have really feared that Jalaludeen and his henchmen were trying to abduct Beena from the house. This can be discerned from two letters (Exts. D4 and D5) which Jalaludeen had sent to D.W. 2. Earlier Jalaludeen and his associates had launched a campaign of graffiti spreading calumny against the protectors of Beena. 11. In all probabilities the police came to know of the episode from P.W. 1. It was 1st accused who went to the police station immediately after keeping P.W. 1 under confinement, and it was the police who rescued P.W. 1 from confinement. 12. From the above circumstances it is quiet possible to infer that the accused would have thought that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 went to the house to secretly transmit the letter to Beena. So the accused would have taken P.W. 1 as an imposter who masqueraded himself as a messenger deputed be the High Court. The conduct of 1st accused in promptly informing the police and bringing the police to the house, after keeping P.W. 1 as captive, is strongly suggestive of such mental disposition for him. In this connection, it has to be remembered that accused and absolutely no grouse against P.W. 1. The only errand of P.W. 1 was to give a notice to 1st accused and it is highly illogical that if accused really believed that P.W. 1 was messenger from the High Court, accused would have made such a blitz on him for no ostensible reason. 13. In the light of the above broad circumstances, I am persuaded to think that the accused would not have believed that P.W. 1 was really a messenger deputed by the High Court. 14. Yet, petitioners cannot escape from conviction of the offences under S. 342 and 323 of the Penal Code. I, therefore, alter the conviction from S. 332 to S. 323 of the Penal Code, but I maintain the conviction under S. 342 of the Penal Code. In the circumstances narrated above there is no need to award jail sentence to the petitioners. I, therefore, reduce the sentence in regard to the offence under S. 342 of the Penal Code to a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. There will be no separate sentence for the offence under S. 323 of the IPC. I, therefore, reduce the sentence in regard to the offence under S. 342 of the Penal Code to a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. There will be no separate sentence for the offence under S. 323 of the IPC. Crl R.P. is disposed of as above. Order accordingly.