JUDGMENT 1. :- Appeal under section 378(1)(3) by the State of Rajasthan and Revisions under section 397/401 Criminal Procedure Code by Banwari Lal injured complainant are directed against the judgment and order dated 18.10.84 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate Kishangarh Bas (Alwar), in criminal case No. 94 of 1981 State Vs. Sanwan Ram and ors. , acquitted the respondents of offences under section 147, 353 and 332 Indian Penal Code and, in-stead, held them guilty of offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code and released them under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act 1960 to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. The respondents, reportedly, did not challenge such order before appellate or revisional court. 2. Relevant facts are these: On July 9, 1981 PW1 Mahendra Bhardwaj, Deputy Distt. Education Officer, Boys Education, Rajasthan (DEO) had gone to inspect Govt. Higher Primary School at Rajwada under Police Station Mundawar in District Alwar, PW1 Banwari Lal was working as Head Master at the said institution at that time. When the too were busy in conducting the inspection business the present respondents alongwith 50 or 55 others reached the school premises and assembled in the Varandah. On quarry it was known that the respondents and their colleagues wanted to meet Shri Mahendra Singh D.E.O. Shri Mahendra Singh asked Shri Banwari Lal Head Master to make sitting arrangements for the respondents and their colleagues in the adjoining room. After Shri Mahendra Singh had done that the respondents and their colleagues got themselves seated on the carpet, spread in the room. Shri Mahendra Singh D.E.O. invited the villagers to place their grevience. They moved an application Ex.P4 to him and complained that due to differences and disputes amongst the teachers the education of the children was adversely affected. They further complained of financial irregularities and required Shri Banwari Lal Head Master to place the accounts for their inspection. Shri Banwari Lal allegedly submitted that the higher authority was already there in the institution and they should make their complaint in that behalf to the D.D.E.O. and he might look into such complaints. This allegedly infuriated the respondents who cought hold of Banwari Lal Head Master and started beating him with fists and kicks. They dragged him outside of the room and assaulted him badly. This allegedly infuriated the respondents who cought hold of Banwari Lal Head Master and started beating him with fists and kicks. They dragged him outside of the room and assaulted him badly. The school staff came to the rescue of Shri Banwari Lal and he was booked in a room in order to save from sustaining further injuries at the hands of the respondents. The respondents then returned. Shri Banwari Lal Head Master submitted a written report Ex. P1 to the D.D.E.O. who forwarded the same to the police. A case under section 147, 332, and 353 Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Maundawar by PW 5 Ramdhan A.S.I. and after investigation PW 7 Subey Singh S.H.O. submitted a police report under section 173 Criminal Procedure Code against the present respondents numbering seven. 3. The learned Magistrate framed charges for offences under section 147, 353 and 332 Indian Penal Code against the respondents and on their pleading not guilty tried them according to law. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in all at the trial of the respondents. Shri Banwari Head Master, PW Shri Mahendra Bhardwaj D.D.E.O., PW 3 Sanwan Ram, PW 4 Khub Ram and PW 5 Ram Singh Asstt. Teachers in that institution at the relevant time stated all the facts, as stated above. PW8 Dr. Shri Chandra who had examined PW1 Banwari Lal Head Master at 7.30 A.M. on 10.4.81 at Primary Health Centre Mandawar stated to have found the following injuries on his person: "1. Bruise C swelling 3 CM X 3 CM, on the right Parietal eminence, blunt. 2. Swelling C Bruise, 4 C.M. X 3 C.M. on the left parietal eminence. 3. Bruise 5 CM X 3 CM. On the right side back scapular region 4. Bruise C Swelling 3 C.M. X 2.5 C.M. (Three) on the left side back supra scapular region. 5. Bruise 2.5 C.M. X 2 C.M. on the left side back on inferior angle of left scapula, 6. Bruise and Abrasion- 2 C.M. X 1.5 C.M. on the left elbow post aspect. 7. Bruise 3 C.M. X 1.5 C.M. on the anterior aspect of right arm. 8. Bruise 3.5 C.M. X 3 C.M. on the left check. 9. Bruise C abrasion 2.5 C.M. X 1.5 C.M. on the post aspect of right jonearim mid portion. 10. Bruise C Abrasion 2 C.M. X 1 C.M. on dosum of left hand. 7. Bruise 3 C.M. X 1.5 C.M. on the anterior aspect of right arm. 8. Bruise 3.5 C.M. X 3 C.M. on the left check. 9. Bruise C abrasion 2.5 C.M. X 1.5 C.M. on the post aspect of right jonearim mid portion. 10. Bruise C Abrasion 2 C.M. X 1 C.M. on dosum of left hand. 11. Bruise 3.5 C.M. X 2 C.M. on left glutial region. 12. Bruise C abrasion 4 C.M. X 2 C.M. On right thigh anterior lateral aspect mid portion. 13. Bruise C Abrasion 1 C.M. X 1 C.M. on Dorsum of right thum mid portion." Dr. Chandra had opined that all the injuries were caused to Shri Banwari Lal with some blunt weapon within the last 24 hours prior to his examination. 4. The plea taken by the respondents was that of denial simplicitor. DW1 Banshi Ram, examined by them in their defence, however, stated that though the respondents were also present in the meeting and that though hot words were also exchanged between the villagers and the Head Master yet there took place no marpit of the Head Master. 5. On the above evidence before him the learned Magistrate held that since in the course of the meeting of the villagers with D.D.E.O., some of the villagers had got provoked on Banwari Lal's speaking that they were not entitled to look into the accounts and all of a sudden they opened an assault on the head master, no offence under section 147 Indian Penal Code was committed. He further held that since by the act of the present respondents in voluntarily assaulting Banwari Lal Head Master in the course of the meeting no prevention or deterrence was caused in the discharge of the official duties by Shri Banwari Lal as a public servant, no offence under section 353 or 332 Indian Penal Code was committed. He, however, held that it was proved beyond any manner of doubt that Banwari Lal Head Master was voluntarily caused simple hurt with blunt weapons by the present respondents. He, therefore, held them guilty for the offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code. He, however, held that it was proved beyond any manner of doubt that Banwari Lal Head Master was voluntarily caused simple hurt with blunt weapons by the present respondents. He, therefore, held them guilty for the offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code. The learned public prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for Banwari Lal, the injured Head Master, has vehemently, urged that after having held that it was in the course of the meeting, called by the D.D.E.O. to discuss the complaint regarding the mismanagement of the school and mis-appropriation of the school-funds by Shri Banwari Lal Head Master, the Head Master was brutally beaten by the respondents, the learned Magistrate erred in law in not holding the respondents guilty of the offences under section 147, 333 and 353 Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, supported the impugned judgment and order. 6. In the present case it was not disputed before me that the incident, as stated by the prosecution, had taken place at the relevant time and place and that in the course of such incident the respondents, had voluntarily caused simple hurt with blunt weapons like fists and kicks to the Head Master Shri Banwari Lal. The respondents have not challenged before me the findings of facts recorded by the learned trial Magistrate against them. The question for determination is whether on the facts found established by the learned Magistrate on record by cogent and reliable evidence it is possible to hold that offences punishable under section 147, 353, and 332 Indian Penal Code were committed in the case. 7. The question for determination is whether on the facts found established by the learned Magistrate on record by cogent and reliable evidence it is possible to hold that offences punishable under section 147, 353, and 332 Indian Penal Code were committed in the case. 7. Section 141 Indian Penal Code defines "unlawful assembly" as under:-Unlawful assembly:--An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "lawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is:- "First-To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant, Second-To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process or, Third-To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence, or Fourth-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or, Fifth-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to-do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation-An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly." 8. A plain reading of Section 141 shows that if the nature of the common object of an assembly of five or more than five persons falls within the ambit of any of the five categories enumerated in the section, such an assembly would be unlawful. The explanation to the section says that an assembly which is lawful in its inception may become unlawful by the subsequent acts of its members. It may turn unlawful all of a sudden and without concert amongst its members. But at the same time it needs to be appreciated that an illegal act of one or two members of an assembly which was lawful in its inception and in which illegal acts the other members do not acquiesce in, would not change the initial character of such an assembly being a lawful assembly. 9. But at the same time it needs to be appreciated that an illegal act of one or two members of an assembly which was lawful in its inception and in which illegal acts the other members do not acquiesce in, would not change the initial character of such an assembly being a lawful assembly. 9. In the instant case it was undisputed an assembly of more than five person, at least of 50 or 60 persons, which had assembled in the school on arrival of Shri Mahendra Bhardwaj D.D.E.O. there. The members of such assembly had gathered in the school Varandah with a written representation with them. It was a peaceful assembly. The object of such assembly was to make complaint against the teaching staff in the school. That was not a unlawful object. As guardians of their wards they had a legal right to make such complaint against the members of the teaching staff in duding the Head-Master. They got themselves peacefully seated in the adjoining room. It was in the course of discussion over the affairs concerning the institution that some of the members of the assembly had pressed for the scrutiny of the accounts of the institution. They might not be having a legal right to so demand the disclosure of the relevant accounts to them but at that point of time even the assembly had not turned into an unlawful assembly. Tempers rose high and the respondents took upon themselves the task of opening an assault on Banwari Lal Head Master. Their act was by no means appreciable rather most condemnable. Yet it is difficult to say that at that point of time the assembly had become unlawful. It is in evidence that other members of the assembly had tried to pacify the enraged respondents. It is also difficult to infer that out of the assembly of more than fifty persons at least, these seven respondents had made a separate assembly with the unlawful object of using criminal force or show of criminal force to compel Banwari Lal Head Master to do what he was not legally bound to do i.e. to show the accounts to them then and there. For all these reasons I think that the order of acquittal of the respondents of the offence under section 147 Indian Penal Code should be left undisturbed. 10. For all these reasons I think that the order of acquittal of the respondents of the offence under section 147 Indian Penal Code should be left undisturbed. 10. However, on the facts established on record the learned Magistrate, in my opinion, certainly erred in law by holding that no offence under section 353 and 332 Indian Penal Code was committed. On the face of the facts established it is evident that the respondent were pressing their demand for action against Banwari Lal Head Master for his acts of omission or commission relating to the discharge of his official duties as Head Master of that institution. Then at the relevant time Shri Mahendra Bhardwaj D.D.E.O. was busy with the inspection work relating to the institution of which Shri Banwari Lal was the Head Master. Both were discharging their official duties as public servants. Even when the respondents were complaining against the supposed misdeeds of the Head Master and Shri Bhardwaj, in his capacity as D.D.E.O., was hearing such complaints and Shri Banwari Lal Head Master was explaining his position and denying access to the public documents in his possession for inspection by public at large, he was also discharging official duties as a public servant. It was in the execution of his duty as a public servant as also in consequence of the acts done by Banwari Lal Head Master in the lawful discharge of his duties an public servants that the respondents had opened an assault upon him and voluntarily caused multiple injuries to him. Banwari Lal was not legally bound to produce the account books before the respondents and/or other members of the assembly. He did not do any unlawful act in refusing to produce the relevant documents for their inspection. The assault opened at him and the injuries caused to him by the respondents under such circumstances dearly brought their act within the purview of Section 353 and 332 Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate was totally wrong in taking the other view of the acts committed by the respondents. They are clearly proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, to have committed the offences punishable under section 353, 332 Indian Penal Code instead of the offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code only. 11. The learned Magistrate was totally wrong in taking the other view of the acts committed by the respondents. They are clearly proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, to have committed the offences punishable under section 353, 332 Indian Penal Code instead of the offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code only. 11. In view of the above discussion the respondents are held guilty of the offences Under Section 353 and 332 Indian Penal Code and convicted as such. The impugned judgment and order are accordingly set aside maintaining, however, their acquittal for the offence under section 147 Indian Penal Code. 12. For sentence I find that the offences under section 353, 332 Indian Penal Code were committed by the respondents against Shri Banwari Lal, Head Master of an educational institution in the presence of his superior officer, Shri Mahendra Bhardwaj D.D.E.O and his subordinates, teachers, clerks and peons and also before the young students being taught by him in that village. The respondents had no justification, whatsoever in assaulting Shri Banwari Lal Head Master in that manner and causing him as many as 14 injuries, may be all simple by blunt weapon, Shri Banwari Lal Head Master was humiliated and demoralised. A public servant is the servant of the society and needs social protection so that he is not demoralised in the performance of his duties and is allowed to serve free from right. Public servants who discharge their onerous duties as teachers, in villages where they are unprotected and unguarded are required to be given respect and regards instead of fists and kicks as were given by the respondents in this case. The totally unjustified and unwarranted acts of the respondents was required to be visited with sentence of imprisonment as that alone would meet the ends of justice and not the unmerited kindly application of probationary measures adopted by the learned Magistrate in this case. I would have certainly awarded severe sentence of imprisonment to the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case but for the reason that more than 16 years have already passed since after the commission of the offence by the respondents in this case. Therefore, I would prefer to impose exemplary punishment of fine instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment to the respondents. 13. Therefore, I would prefer to impose exemplary punishment of fine instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment to the respondents. 13. In the result the judgment and order under appeal and revision are set aside and the conviction of the respondent under section 323 Indian Penal Code is altered to one under section 353, 332 for which they were tried but illegally acquitted by the learned Magistrate. Each of them is sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for offence under section 332 Indian Penal Code or in case of default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for six months each. They are allowed three months time to pay the amount of fine. 20% of the amount of fine, if realised shall be paid to PW 1 Banwari Lal Head Master by way of compensation and the balance amount shall be paid to the Legal Aid Board, Rajasthan Jaipur through its Secretary. Awarding of separate sentence for offence under Section 353 Indian Penal Code is not considered necessary.Appeal and revision allowed partly. *******