JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The appellants being accused in S.T. Case No.55 of 1996 pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Athagarh faced trial for alleged commission of offences under Sec¬tions 147/148/332/333/325/307/379/149 IPC. 2. The Criminal action was set in motion on the basis of an FIR filed by P.W.13, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. It was alleged in the FIR that at the midnight of 23rd January, 1992 while the Forest staff of Purunakota Range were performing patrol duty under the leadership of P.W.13 they heard some felling sound in the teak plantation area. Then they noticed two persons drag¬ging teak logs from the reserve forest. They seized the said logs and detained the culprits. As the said two culprits raised hulla and called their companions, about sixty persons arrived at the spot being armed with axe, sword, lathi, etc., surrounded the Forest staff and threatened them to kill. They in fact assaulted them for which some of the staff ran helter and skelter to save their lives while P.W.22 Birendra Chandra Sahu, the Range Offi¬cer, and others were severely assaulted and were injured. The accused persons in course of assault also snatched away a DBL gun from the Range Officer. The injured were first shifted to Puruna¬kota Hospital and then to B.D. Hospital at Angul for treatment and next day P.W.13 lodged the FIR at Narasinghpur P.S. on the basis of which G.R. Case No.5(A)/92 was initiated in the Court of the JMFC, Narasinghpur. The said case being committed to the Curt of session was registered as the aforesaid S.T. Case. The plea of the accused-appellants was denial of the alleged occurrence. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution got examined twenty-two witnesses and exhibited nineteen documents, while the defence neither got examined any witness nor did exhibit any document on its behalf. Out of the prosecution witnesses, P.Ws 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20 and 21 were the Forest staff who had gone to the spot on patrol duty. P.Ws 3, 4 and 8 and 9 were the co-villagers of the accused who have not supported the prosecution case. P.Ws. 18 and 19 were the medical officers who had examined the injured and P.Ws. 15 and 20 were the investigating officers. 4. The trial Court after discussing the evidence of P.Ws. P.Ws 3, 4 and 8 and 9 were the co-villagers of the accused who have not supported the prosecution case. P.Ws. 18 and 19 were the medical officers who had examined the injured and P.Ws. 15 and 20 were the investigating officers. 4. The trial Court after discussing the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20 and 21 and after perusing the injury reports and analysing the medical evidence in that regard came to the conclusion that prosecution had successfully established its case against the accused persons under Sections 148/333/332/379/149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts and convicted them there-under. It also held that the prosecution had failed to establish the commission of offences by the accused persons under Sections 147/325/307 IPC and acquitted them of the said charges. The trial Court sentenced the accused-appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 148 IPC; five years’ rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 333/149 IPC; one year’s rigorous im¬prisonment for the offence under Section 332/149 IPC and one year’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 379/149 IPC besides sentencing each of the accused-appellants to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 in all counts, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more. The substantive sen¬tences have been directed to run consecutively. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence is assailed in this appeal. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court were based on surmises and conjectures without properly appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary. He further submitted that the most vital documentary evidence like X-ray plates, X-ray reports, injury reports, etc. were kept out of record and only on the basis of the oral evidence of the two doctors, P.Ws.18 and 19 who never treated the injured, the trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section 333 IPC. He further forcefully submitted that the injury reports and other materials clearly indicated that the injuries sustained by the respective injured persons were not grievous in nature. Thus the basis ingredient of Section 333 IPC were not made out which aspect was not kept in mind by the trial Court. The learned counsel also submitted that all the P.Ws. who were employees of the Forest Department were interested in the prosecution and the independent witnesses like P.Ws. Thus the basis ingredient of Section 333 IPC were not made out which aspect was not kept in mind by the trial Court. The learned counsel also submitted that all the P.Ws. who were employees of the Forest Department were interested in the prosecution and the independent witnesses like P.Ws. 3, 4, 8 and 9 being co-villagers of the accused never supported the prosecution and, as such, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellants of all the charges due to lack of any independent evidence. That apart, he submitted that there were a lot of contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which the trial Court lost sight of. Insubstance, the learned counsel submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court being not just and proper it is fit case where the appeal should be allowed and the appellants should be acquitted. The aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants are however strongly repudiated by the learned counsel for the State. He submitted that Government officials while performing their duty were surrounded and assaulted by the ac¬cused persons who were cutting valuable trees from reserve forest and this fact has been successfully established by the prosecu¬tion evidence. He further submitted that some of the co-accused of the appellants having absconded have not yet faced the trial. According to him, the evidence of the two doctors examined by the prosecution clearly proved that the inured had suffered grievous injuries. Thus the Court below has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the appellants and impugned judgment is quite in consonance with law. 6. On perusal of the impugned judgment this Court finds that the trial Court has vividly discussed the evidence on record and the conclusions arrived at by it are just and proper. The evidence of P.Ws. 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17 who were present at the spot clearly implicated the appellants in the alleged of¬fences. The evidence of P.Ws. 10, 11 and 13 reveals that when the accused persons had surrounded the Forest staff being armed with various weapons and threatened to kill them, P.W.13 opened blank fire, but without being frightened by that they rather snatched away the gun. P.Ws.10 and 17 were the injured who categorically stated that the appellants had assaulted them and they have also named the appellants. P.Ws.10 and 17 were the injured who categorically stated that the appellants had assaulted them and they have also named the appellants. Though the aforesaid prosecution witnesses were cross-examined by defence, nothing could elicit from their statements to disbelieve them. The evidence of the doctors clear¬ly revealed that the injured Forest staff had sustained grievous injuries. A cumulative assessment of the entire evidence clearly leads to the conclusion that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellants and the conclusions arrived at by it were just and reasonable. 7. But then considering the fact that the occurrence in question took place in the year 1992 and almost fourteen years have elapsed in the meanwhile, this Court feels that while up¬holding the conviction of the appellants, it would just and proper to modify the sentences imposed on them by the trial Court. This Court accordingly upholds the conviction of the appellants and sentences them to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 148 IPC; R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 333/149 IPC; and R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 379/149 IPC besides sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs.300.00 on each count, in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the appellants will be entitled to set off as per the Code of Criminal Procedure. With the aforesaid modification of sentence, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Crl. Appeal dismissed.