JUDGMENT: Appellant is the accused in S.C.No.313 of 1996 on the file of VII Additional Sessions Judge, Madras. Aggrieved over his conviction under Ss.332, I.P.C., 336, I.P.C. and 324, I.P.C. Appellant/Accused has come forward with this appeal. 2. The details of the charges framed against the acused and the findings of the Trial Court and the sentence imposed upon him are as noted below: (1) Charge (2) Gist of charges (3) Finding of the Trial Court (4) Conviction/Sentence 1. Under Sec.332, I.P.C. Wrongful Restraint of Public Servants from discharging their duty. Found guilty. Rigorous Imprisonment for 18 months. 2. Under Sec.307, I.P.C. Attempt to commit murder of Pandiyan. Found not guilty but found guilty under Sec.324, I.P.C. For the conviction under Sec.324, I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. 3. Under Sec.336, I.P.C. Act - endangering life or personal safety of others by rash and negligent act. Found guilty. Rigorous Imprisonment for 18 months. 4. Under Sec.506(ii), I.P.C. Criminal Intimidation. Found not guilty. Acquitted. 3. Case of prosecution could briefly be stated thus: P.W.1 - Pandiyan (P.C.No.12409) and P.W.2 - Chellaiah (P.C.No.9759) are the Police Constables attached to R.7 Police Station, K.K.Ngar. On the forenoon of 5.3.1996, P.Ws.1 and 2 obtained Beat Ticket from the Station. They were on patrolling duty in Anna Nagar junction, Govindasamy Street. At about 11.30 a.m., when they were on duty near ‘R.R.Wine Shop’, the accused was found to be quarrelsome, shouting and quarelling. He was also found to be wielding soda bottles and breaking them. On seeing the same, P.W.s 1 and 2 rushed to the spot and when they attempted to nab the accused, he threw the soda bottles on P.Ws.1 and 2. He had also brandished M.O.1 - Knife and threatened P.Ws.1 and 2. When the accused attempted to inflict injury on P.W.1 and when he prevented the same, P.W.1 sustained injury on his left forearm. The accused fisted P.W.2 on his face. Thereafter, the accused was rounded and taken in an auto to the Police Station and handed over to P.W.5 - Inspector of Police. 4. On the occurrence, P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1 - Complaint. On the basis of Ex.P.1 - Complaint, P.W.5 registered the case in Crime No.834 of 1996 under Ss.332, 336, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. under Ex.P.4 - First Information Report. M.O.1 - Knife was seized under Form 95. 5. Injured P.Ws.1 and 2 were sent to the hospital. 4. On the occurrence, P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1 - Complaint. On the basis of Ex.P.1 - Complaint, P.W.5 registered the case in Crime No.834 of 1996 under Ss.332, 336, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. under Ex.P.4 - First Information Report. M.O.1 - Knife was seized under Form 95. 5. Injured P.Ws.1 and 2 were sent to the hospital. P.W.4 Dr.Arumugam treated them. He has noted incised would on the posterior aspect of left fore arm of P.W.1 and issued Ex.P.2 - Wound Certificate. Noting contusion below the right ear. P.W.4 issued Ex.P.3 - Wound Certificate regarding P.W.2 - Chellaiah. 6. P.W.5 - I.O. had taken up the investigation. He has prepared Ex.P.5 - Observations Mahazar and Ex.P.6 - Rough plan. M.O.2 (series) - Broken soda bottle pieces were seized under Ex.P.7 - Seizure Mahazar. On completion of investigation, accused was charge sheeted for various offences. 7. In the trial court, to establish the charges against the accused, Police Constables - P.Ws. 1 and 2, Medical witness - P.W.4 and Investigating Officer - P.W.5 and Independent Witness - P.W.3 (who turned hostile) were examined. On the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the Trial Court found that the prosecution has proved that the accused has caused injuries to P.Ws.1 and 2. It was further, held that the accused had prevented and deterred P.Ws.1 and 2 from discharging their duty. Finding that there was no intention to attempt on the life of P.W.1, the accused was acquitted for the offence under Sec.307, I.P.C. Likewise, on the ground that there was no Criminal Intimidation, the accused was acquitted under Sec.506(ii), I.P.C. 8. Assailing the findings of the trial court, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that the trial court erred in basing the conviction on the evidence of the police witnesses. Drawing the attention of the court to the hostility of P.W.3 - Tamilselvan, it is contended that the evidence was not properly appreciated in the light of the hostility of P.W.3. Submitting that this case was foisted against the accused for making a ground case for detaining him under the Preventive Detention Act, the learned counsel urged that the conviction of the Appellant/Accused is unsustainable. 9. Repelling the arguments of the Appellan/Accused, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has submitted that the conviction is well based upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 9. Repelling the arguments of the Appellan/Accused, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has submitted that the conviction is well based upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The learned Government Advocate has further submitted that there could be no general rule to disbelieve the evidence of Police witnesses, particularly when they are injured witnesses and when their evidence passes the test of reliability. Drawing the attention of the court to the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 2 and the promptness of registration of the case, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the conviction is well based upon the evidence on record and that there is no reason warranting in terference. 10. Whether the verdict of conviction of the appellant/accused and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him suffer from any infirmity? Is the main point arising for consideration in this appeal. 11. There could be no denying that P.Ws.1 and 2 - Police Constables were on regular patrolling duty in Anna Nagar Junction, Govindasamy Street on 5.3.1996 at 11.00 a.m. From their evidence, it is made clear that at about 11.30 a.m. the appellant/accused was found to be quarrelsome and shouting, wielding and breaking the soda bottles. On seeing P.Ws.1 and 2, the appellant/accused had scolded them as and by so saying, he had thrown the soda bottles. We had also brandished M.O.1 - Knife and attempted to inflict injury to P.W.1. When P.W.1 prevented the the same, he sustained injuries on the left forearm. The appellant/accused punched P.W.2 on his face. After nabbing the accused, he was immediately handed over to P.W.5 - I.O., which set the criminal law in motion. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that they were in discharge of public duty. It is to be seen whether the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is reliable and whether the injuries caused to them are inconsequence of their duty as Public Servants? 12. Credibility of P.Ws.1 and 2 is attacked on the ground that they are police witnesses and are suborned to make a ground case against the appellant/accused. Drawing the attention of the court to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that their version that the accused had broken twenty soda bottles does not pass the test or probabilities. Drawing the attention of the court to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that their version that the accused had broken twenty soda bottles does not pass the test or probabilities. Attacking the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is submitted that it is highly improbable that the appellant/accused would have made an attempt on the life of police personnel (P.Ws.1 and 2) and caused injuries to them. The reliability of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is also attacked on the ground that they are police witnesses and that P.W.3 - an auto driver had turned hostile. 13. P.W.3 - Tamilselvan, an auto driver, examined by the prosecution as an eye witness, has turned hostile. Either fearing the appellant/accused or for other reasons, P.W.3 might have turned hostile. His hostility and indifference towards the occurrence of crime would not affect the prosecution case. The hostility of P.W.3 could not in any way be the touchstone for testing the veracity of P.Ws.1 and 2. 14. There is no legal preposition that the evidence of police witnesses, unless supported by independent witness is unworthy of acceptance. Non-examination of independent witnesses or hostility of the independent witnesses examined might only cast a duty on the Court to adopt a cautious approach while scrutinising the evidence of the police witnesses. But, their evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are Police Officials and interested in the prosecuting agency. Perhaps, the police witnesses may be having desire to see the success of the case. But, this might only require greater care to appreciate their evidence. 15. In the instant case, though P.Ws.1 and 2 are Police Personnel, the fact that they sustained injuries lends assurance to their credibility. The medical evidence that P.W.1 - Pandiyan sustained incised wound on the posterior aspect of left forearm; and that P.W.2 - Chelliah sustained contusion below the right ear lends assurance to the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the scene of occurrence and their version about the occurrence. The learned trial Judge, who had the opportunity of seeing and observing the demeanour of these witnesses, had accepted the version of P.Ws.1 and 2. No convincing ground is made out to discard the version of P.Ws.1 and 2. The learned trial Judge, who had the opportunity of seeing and observing the demeanour of these witnesses, had accepted the version of P.Ws.1 and 2. No convincing ground is made out to discard the version of P.Ws.1 and 2. The point urged by the appellant/accused that this case was foisted against the accused to make a ground case for detaining him under the Preventive Detention Laws has no force. 16. Charge under Sec.332, I.P.C. P.Ws.1 and 2 obtained Beat Ticket for doing duty in the scene of occurrence. Thus, they were on regular patrolling duty to ensure law and order in the area. No doubt, P.Ws.1 and 2 were not on special duty in connection with the appellant/accused. But, that does not in any way dilute the prosecution charge that they were in discharge of their duty as public servants. While they were so on regular patrolling duty, in an attempt to round the accused, P.Ws.1 and 2 received injuries. The physical resistance of the appellant/accused in discharge of the duty of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the essential requirement of Sec.332. I.P.C. are well proved by the prosecution. 17. As discussed earlier, that P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained injuries is well corroborated by the medical evidence. Hardly there is any reason to doubt the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. It is highly improbable that a responsible Medical Officer, like P.W.4 would have obliged to the polie to issue the medical certificates (Exs.P.2 and P.3). The contention urged by the appellant/accused that this case is foisted to make a ground case has no force. 18. Charge under Sec.336 I.P.C. In a rash and negligent manner, the appellant/accused is alleged to have wielded the broken soda bottles. From Ex.P.6 - Rough plan, it is seen that the scene of occurrence - Anna Nagar junction is surrounded by various shops and hotel, buzzing with activities. In such an area, wielding soda bottles in a rash and negligent manner would certainly attract Sec.336 I.P.C. The appellan/accused was unmindful of the danger being caused to others. By proving that the appellant/accused had thrown the soda bottles endangering the human life, prosecution has well established the essential ingredients of Sec.336, I.P.C. and the same is also to be sustained. 19. By proving that the appellant/accused had thrown the soda bottles endangering the human life, prosecution has well established the essential ingredients of Sec.336, I.P.C. and the same is also to be sustained. 19. For the conviction under Ss.332 and 336 I.P.C., the trial Court has imposed iigorous imprisonment of 18 months each and for the conviction under Sec.324, I.P.C., the trial Court has imposed simple imprisonment of six months. Submitting that the appellant/accused was already detained under the Preventive Detention Act and was also inside the prison in connection with this case, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for showing leniency. 20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 2, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 18 months imposed upon the appellant is reduced to a period of one year. 21. Therefore, the judgment of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Madras in S.C.No.313 of 1996 (dated: 21.4.1997) convicting the appellant/accused under Ss.332, I.P.C. 324, I.P.C. and 336, I.P.C. is confirmed. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 18 months imposed upon the appellant/accused is reduced to a period of one year and this appeal is partly allowed to that extent. The Trial Court is directed to take immediate steps for securing the accused to commit him to prison for serving the remaining period of sentence.