JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order of conviction dated 10.9.1984 passed by the Sessions Judge Balotra, Camp Banner in Sessions Case No. 32/83 convicting the appellants under section 333 r/w Section 34 IPC to 3 years R.I. each fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default to undergo 6 months S.L, under section 332 r/w Section 34 IPC 2 years R.I. each, and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo 3 months S.I., under section 452 IPC 2 years R.I. each and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo 3 months SI. concurrently on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and also verbally canvassed before me. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and learned Public Prosecutor I have scrutinised the evidence on record and reappreciated the evidence on record. 3. The prosecution story as stated briefly, is that on 13.3.1983 at about 2.00 a.m. the accused persons assaulted the complainant, who is a public servant being engaged as helper in Water Works Scheme at Mithora. It was complained that while he was so working, the accused came there and assaulted him for not allowing them to take water from the pump. On the basis of this report an FIR was filed and investigation was started at the end of which the accused persons were convicted for offence punishable under sections 332, 333, 332/34, 333/34 & 415. On completion of evidence and investigation challan was filed against the accused. The accused were duly prosecuted in Sessions Trial No. 52/84. After recording the evidence the learned Judge decided the trial on 10.9.1984 as aforesaid convicting the accused persons as mentioned above. It is this order of conviction which is assailed on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and also canvassed before me. 4. On re-appreciation of evidence I find that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Judge in recording conviction. His appreciation of the evidence on record is proper and does not suffer from any lacuna. There is, therefore, no question of interfering with the order of conviction. 5. 4. On re-appreciation of evidence I find that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Judge in recording conviction. His appreciation of the evidence on record is proper and does not suffer from any lacuna. There is, therefore, no question of interfering with the order of conviction. 5. It will be, however, seen from the evidence as it stands on the record that at the time assault took place the complainant was cooking food, and the reasons for which he was beaten up was some incident which occurred earlier in point of time. Consequently, it cannot be said that the complainant was assaulted by the accused persons to prevent him from discharging his duties and hence the provisions of Sections 332 & 333 of the IPC are not attracted. No conviction under that provision is, therefore, necessary. From the prosecution evidence, it is clear that grievous hurt was caused to the injured but the hurt caused is grievous only technically, as the complainant had fractured his finger. Taking into consideration the over all circumstances, it would be just and proper, therefore, if the sentences is reduced to that of already undergone. 6. It is pertinent to note that the accused persons are also employees of the State and it is obvious from the evidence on record that the offence occurred on the spur of moment being enraged by refusal on the part of the complainant to permit the accused to take water from the pump. The appeal is pending for last more than 15 years, during which all the accused persons are on bail. The accused persons have been adequately punished. In my opinion, it would also be necessary in the circumstances of this case to prevent any further loss being caused to the accused persons by reason of this conviction. 7. The appeal is pending for last more than 15 years, during which all the accused persons are on bail. The accused persons have been adequately punished. In my opinion, it would also be necessary in the circumstances of this case to prevent any further loss being caused to the accused persons by reason of this conviction. 7. Taking into consideration of fact that the appeal was pending for more than 16' years during which the accused persons were at liberty and the fact that the accused-appellants are also employees of the State, serious injuries would be caused to the families and to do complete justice in the circumstances, I feel it necessary to partly allow the appeal, set aside the order of conviction in so far as it relates to conviction under sections 332, 333 IPC and the other convictions as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge are hereby affirmed, however, the sentence is reduce a to that already undergone and it is further directed that the conviction shall not come in the way of the service of the appellants as dis-qualification as per the provisions of Prevention of Offenders Act.Appeal partly allowed. *******