( 1 ) THE accused is acquitted of an offence punishable u/s. 333, IPC. The case of the prosecution discloses that on 15-6-1998 at 6. 45 p. m. the accused was driving the auto on the M. G. Road, jumped the signal line. P. W. 2 the duty Police Constable gave a vigil to accused to stop his auto. The accused instead drove the auto suddenly in a rash and negligent manner, tried to escape the consequence of law. P. W. 1-the police Inspector chased the auto of the accused. P. W. 2 got into auto of P. W. 8 and chased the auto of the accused. The auto of the accused is intercepted near Kamraj road by P. W. 1. The accused denied the commission of any traffic offence, further, furiously hit P. W. 2 on his chest as a result, the three ribs on the left side are fractured. The police and the people apprehended the accused, he was taken to the police station. P. W. 1 lodged complaint. P. W. 2 is sent to the hospital for treatment. The medical record discloses the fracture of three ribs on the left side. ( 2 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 8 fully corroborate the prosecution version about interception of auto at Kamaraj Road - assault by the accused on P. W. 2, causing grievous injuries. P. W. 8 is an auto driver an independent witness and he corroborates the prosecution version. The medical evidence also corroborates the causation of grievous injuries and fractures. The assault took place on P. W. 2 when he was on duty. ( 3 ) THE counsel for the accused submitted that the auto number given in evidence by P. W. 2 is different from the one given in the complaint. There is a discrepancy with regard to the place where the auto was intercepted. Hence argued for acquittal. ( 4 ) ON thorough consideration of facts and evidence of P. W. 2, I find that the discrepancies pointed out are unimportant. The substantial version of the prosecution about accused jumping the signal line - P. W. 2 chasing the auto with the assistance of auto of P. W. 8 - the accused assaulting P. W. 2 is very well testified by P. W. 2 and well corroborated by P. W. 8 an independent witness. The substantial version of the prosecution about accused jumping the signal line - P. W. 2 chasing the auto with the assistance of auto of P. W. 8 - the accused assaulting P. W. 2 is very well testified by P. W. 2 and well corroborated by P. W. 8 an independent witness. The discrepancies pointed out and argued have no effect of eroding the veracity of the substantial evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 8. The order of acquittal granted is bad in law and the same is set aside. ( 5 ) IT is bizarre to note that there is terrible irrationality in the sentence prescribed for committing offences u/s. 333, IPC. The said offence is in combination of offence -defined u/s. 320 and the offence of assault on a public servant punishable u/s. 353, ipc. The offence of grievous hurt is punishable u/s. 326, IPC with life imprisonment or with the imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. Whereas a higher form of manifested offence u/s. 333 is made punishable only with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The lawmakers shall take note of the anomaly in the sentencing policy and effect necessary correction by way of amendment. Although it is belated yet the lawmakers at least should now wake up to go for a thorough rational and scientific review of sentencing policy for all the offences. The different types of injuries enumerated u/s. 320 do not ensue same amount of harm, pain and disability. Therefore proportionate to the nature of grievous injuries and its consequences, the punishment should be redefined. So also the punishment for an offence u/s. 333 should be redefined. Similarly in respect of other offences rational sentence to be re-prescribed in respect of other, offences. ( 6 ) THE accused is convicted u/s. 333, ipc. The accused is sentenced to R. I. for a period of three months and to pay a fine of rs. 25,000/- in default to further suffer S. I. for a period of three months. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 20,000/- shall be payable as compensation of to P. W. 2. Appeal allowed