JUDGMENT R.L. KHURANA, J.—Appellant Vinod Kumar was tried for the offence under Sections 333 and 506 IPC in case Sessions Trial No. 13-N/7 of 1992 ; by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan. Though, he was acquitted of the offence under Section 506, IPC, he was convicted for the offence under Section 333, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of the payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon him | by the learned Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 2.5.94, the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution story is this. The appellant is working \ as a conductor with the Himachal Road Transport Corporation. He remained I posted at Nahan Depot up to 17.7.89 when he came to be transferred to Dhalli I Depot. The appellant was facing a departmental inquiry at Nahan depot. The I record pertaining to such inquiry was transferred to Dhalli depot consequent I upon his transfer to such depot. PW 1 Jatti Ram is working as a clerk with I the Transport Corporation and posted in the office of Regional Manager at Nahan. He was having the custody of the record pertaining to the disciplinary I inquiry against the appellant. Such record of disciplinary action was sent by I him to Dhalli depot consequent upon the transfer of the appellant to such depot. On account of the transfer of the record pertaining to the disciplinary action against him, the appellant was nursing a grudge against PW 1 Jatti Ram. On 13.10.90 at about 10.45 p.m. in the afternoon PW Jatti Ram was I present at the Delhi gate bus-stop Nahan in order to board a bus for going to his native place. The appellant came there and started cursing and abusing PW.1 for having sent the record pertaining to disciplinary action against him to Dhalli depot. In the meanwhile, a Haryana Roadways bus bound for Jammunanagar via Paonta Sahib arrived at the bus-stop. When PW. 1 tried to board that bus the appellant grabed him from behind pulled him out and gave a fist blow on his nose, as a result of which his nose started bleeding. In the meanwhile, a Haryana Roadways bus bound for Jammunanagar via Paonta Sahib arrived at the bus-stop. When PW. 1 tried to board that bus the appellant grabed him from behind pulled him out and gave a fist blow on his nose, as a result of which his nose started bleeding. The appellant thereafter gave few more fist blows on the face and chest of PW. 1 Jatti Ram. S/Sh. Amar Singh and Jaswant Singh, the two employees of the Transport Corporation, who were also travelling by the said Haryana Roadways bus intervened. Some local shop-keepers having their shops at the bus stop also intervened and rescued PW. 1 Jatti Ram from the clutches of the appellant. A report came to be made to the police and after necessary medical examination, a case under Section 325, IPC came to be registered at police station, Nahan vide FIR No. 164 of 1990. After the necessary investigation, on a case having been found against the appellant under Sections 333 and 506 IPC, he was accordingly, arrested, challenged and sent up for trial. 4. The appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial. His case is that of denial simpliciter The defence as disclosed during the course of cross-examination of the various witnesses of the prosecution as well as during the course of defence evidence is to the effect that there had been an altercation between the appellant and PW. 1 Jatti Ram at the bus-stop on the relevant day. According to the appellant, PW. 1 Jatti Ram was carrying two bags with him and that while boarding the bus along with the bags, he happened to fall down, as a result of which he sustained injuries. The blows having been given by the appellant to PW. 1 was denied. 5. The learned Sessions Judge upon consideration of the material placed before him acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 506, IPC and convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 333, IPC as aforesaid. 6. At the very outset, it may be stated that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 333, IPC cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set-aside. 7. 6. At the very outset, it may be stated that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 333, IPC cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set-aside. 7. In order to sustain a conviction for the offence under Section 333, Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove the existence of either of the following circumstances— (a) that grievous hurt was caused while the public servant was in the discharge of his duty as such public servant; (b) that the public servant was prevented or deterred from discharging his duty; and (c) that the public servant was assaulted in consequences of anything done or attempted to be done by the public servant in the discharge of his duty. In the present case, the prosecution has not been able to prove the existence of any of the above three mentioned circumstances. It has come on the record that on 13.10.90 it was a gazetted holiday. At the relevant time, that is, at about 10.45 p.m., PW. 1 was present at the bus-stop in order to catch a bus for going to his native place. The evidence coming on the record thus shows that neither PW. 1 Jatti Ram was on duty at the relevant time nor he was assaulted while he was discharging his duty as a public servant. He was also not deterred or prevented from performing the duty as a public servant. The learned Sessions Judge, has, therefore, wrongly held the appellant to be guilty of the offence under Section 333, IPC. !n fact, the learned Sessions Judge has lost sight of the fact that on the relevant day it was a public holiday and at the relevant time PW. Jatti Ram was not on duty nor he was present at the bus-stand in the discharge of his official duty as a public servant. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 333, IPC is, therefore, liable to be set-aside on this short ground alone. 8. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has contended that even though a offence under Section 333, IPC might not have been proved against the appellant, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a case under Section 325, IPC stands proved against the appellant and he can be convicted and sentenced for the said offence. 8. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has contended that even though a offence under Section 333, IPC might not have been proved against the appellant, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a case under Section 325, IPC stands proved against the appellant and he can be convicted and sentenced for the said offence. In support of his contention, the learned Assistant Advocate-General has relied upon the ratio laid down by the apex Court in D. Chattaiah and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1978 SC 1441). In the said case, the accused therein was charged for the offence under Section 332 IPC. The injured complainant was found to be not on duty at the relevant time nor the injuries were caused to him in respect of act done in the discharge of his duty as a public servant. The Honble apex Court, accordingly, converted the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused therein for the one under Section 323, IPC after setting aside the conviction for the offence under Section 332, IPC. 9. P.W. 1 Jatti Ram has deposed that the occurrence was witnessed by S/Shri Amar Singh, Jaswant Singh, Anmol Singh and one Ashok Kumar. Admittedly, Jaswant Singh and Amar Singh above-named are the employees of the Himachal Road Transport Corporation. Anmol Singh and Ashok Kumar above-named are having their shops at the bus-stand, Nahan. Out of the above-named four persons, only Jaswant Singh has been examined as PW. 2, while Anmol Singh has been examined as PW. 9. Neither Amar Singh nor Ashok Kumar was examined during the course of the trial. 10. PW. 9 Anmol Singh has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has categorically denied the beating having been given by the appellant to PW. 1 Jatti Ram. Though, he admitted some altercation having been taken place between them. Though, PW. 9 was declared hostile and subjected to cross-examination at a great length by the prosecution, nothing could be brought on the record to show either that he was suppressing the truth or that he was in any manner interested in the appellant. 11. PW. 2 has supported the prosecution story by stating that a fist blow was given by the appellant on the nose of PW. 1 Jatti Ram. For the reasons hereafter following, his testimony cannot be believed. 12. Upon medical examination of PW. 11. PW. 2 has supported the prosecution story by stating that a fist blow was given by the appellant on the nose of PW. 1 Jatti Ram. For the reasons hereafter following, his testimony cannot be believed. 12. Upon medical examination of PW. 1 Jatti Ram, his nosal bone was found to be fractured. The doctor conducting the medical examination while appearing as PW. 7 has on the basis of the X-Ray report opined that the injury found on the person of PW. 1 was of a grievous nature and could have been sustained as a result of fist blow. However, during the course of cross-examination, he also admitted that such injury could have been sustained even as a result of fall. 13. As stated above, the defence version is that PW. 1 Jatti Ram was carrying two bags and while boarding the bus carrying such bags, he fell down, since the bus all of a sudden started moving. The fact that PW. 1 was carrying two bags at the relevant time stands admitted by PW. 2 Jaswant Singh. It has also come in the statement of P.W. 2 that PW. 1 Jatti Ram could not board the bus at once due to the said two bags. Though, both PWs Nos, 1 and 2 denied the suggestion that injuries were sustained by PW. 1 as a result of fall by boarding the bus, it is well settled principle of law that a reasonable explanation given by the accused, even though not proved, has to be accepted, 14. In the present case, as stated above, the two eye-witnesses namely Ashok Kumar and Amar Singh have not been examined. One out of the two eye-witnesses has not been supported in the case of the prosecution. The explanation coming on the part of the appellant with regard to the injuries on the person of PW. 1 is reasonable in view of the admission coming in the statement of PW. 2 that PW. 1 at the relevant time was carrying two bags \n his hand while boarding the bus and that he could not board the same at once. Such reasonable explanation coming on the record on behalf of the appellant has to be accepted even though not proved and on the basis of the evidence coming on the record, even, the offence under Section 325, IPC does not stand proved against the appellant. Such reasonable explanation coming on the record on behalf of the appellant has to be accepted even though not proved and on the basis of the evidence coming on the record, even, the offence under Section 325, IPC does not stand proved against the appellant. 15. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant is set-aside and he is acquitted of the offences charged against him. His bail bonds shall stand conceited and discharged. The amount of fine, if already deposited by the appellant, shall be refunded to him forthwith. Appeal allowed. -