Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANTS have preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and order of sentence passed by Third additional Sessions Judge, Satna in S. T. No. 89/86 vide judgment dated 18. 10. 94. ( 2. ) APPELLANTS have been convicted under Section 332 of IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to Deputy Ranger forest, Divakar Prasad Pandey, a public servant, in execution of his official duty and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-each, in default rigorous imprisonment for three months by the impugned judgment. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, on 18. 5. 85 about 8 oclock in the morning, when Deputy Ranger Forest, divakar Prasad Pandey was on duty alongwith Forest Guards chhotelal and Dinesh Prasad Shukla in Forest Depot, amarpatan, appellants with two-three other persons came there and asked them to give bamboos. Deputy Ranger, divakar Prasad Pandey told them that as per rules only 25 bamboos could be given to one person on the basis of registration or panchayat certificate. Then appellants and other persons accompanying them got enraged and demanded 500 bamboos per person at fair price, else they would take them to task. When Deputy Ranger divakar Prasad Pandey expressed inability to concede to their demand, appellants began hurling abuses, intimidated him, caught hold of the collar of Forest Guard Chhotelal and began assaulting him. When Deputy Ranger, Divakar Prasad pandey tried to intervene, the appellants assaulted him and caused grievous hurt. Forest Guard Chhotelal also sustained injuries in the incident. Upon hue and cry, Jagdish Prasad shukla, Dinesh, Dashrath, Girija Prasad and Pramod Kumar came to their rescue, then the appellants and other co-accused persons fled away snatching the bag of Dinesh containing one thousand rupees. A written report of the incident was made by Deputy Ranger, Divakar Prasad Pandey to the Station House Officer, P. S. Amarpatan, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellants and other co-accused persons. Complainant Divakar Prasad pandey and injured Chhotelal were sent for medical examination. After due investigation, appellants and twelve other co-accused persons were prosecuted under Section 147, 332, 333, 294, 506-B of IPC and were put to trial. ( 4. ) APPELLANTS and co-accused persons denied the charges under Section 333 and 332 of IPC framed against them and pleaded false implication. ( 5. After due investigation, appellants and twelve other co-accused persons were prosecuted under Section 147, 332, 333, 294, 506-B of IPC and were put to trial. ( 4. ) APPELLANTS and co-accused persons denied the charges under Section 333 and 332 of IPC framed against them and pleaded false implication. ( 5. ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, acquitted all the co-accused persons and the appellants of the charge under Section 333 of IPC, but found the appellants guilty under Section 332 of IPC, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellants on the basis of inconsistent, contradictory and infirm evidence of inimical witnesses without any independent corroboration and failed to consider that the appellants were falsely implicated, whereas the co-accused persons were acquitted on the same set of evidence. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellants. ( 8. ) PERUSED the evidence on record. Complainant divakar Prasad Prasad (P. W-7) deposed in his evidence that on 18. 5. 85, he was posted as Deputy Ranger Forest, amarpatan and was on duty at about 8 oclock in Forest depot, Amarpatan alongwith Forest Guards Chhotelal and dinesh Prasad. This fact was not seriously challenged in cross-examination or otherwise. It is also reflected from the testimony of Dinesh Prasad Shukla (P. W-2) and jagdish Prasad Shukla (P. W-3) and Janardan Prasad (P. W-4)that the incident occurred at Forest Depot, Amarpatan in the morning over the dispute as to supply of bamboos. As such the trial court has rightly held that complainant divakar Prasad Pandey was posted as Deputy Ranger, amarpatan on 18. 5. 85 and was on duty as a public servant. ( 9. ) COMPLAINANT Divakar Prasad Pandey (P. W-7) also deposed that the appellants and other persons were asking for five hundred bamboos to each of them, whereupon he told them that the bamboos would be supplied as per Govt. rules and the availability, which enraged them; appellants and others then began hurling abuses and assaulting Forest guard; they also assaulted complainant Divakar Prasad by lathi, rod and hockey and thereby caused several injuries on his body. rules and the availability, which enraged them; appellants and others then began hurling abuses and assaulting Forest guard; they also assaulted complainant Divakar Prasad by lathi, rod and hockey and thereby caused several injuries on his body. He then gave a written report (Ex. P-7) at p. S. Amarpatan. ( 10. ) P. W-3 Jagdish Prasad Shukla, who is an independent witness, also corroborated this fact that the appellants and other persons accompanying them were asking the forest personnels to give five hundred bamboos to each of them, whereupon complainant Divakar Prasad pandey told that he could give only 25 bamboos per person as per rules; then they had assaulted Divakar Prasad Pandey and Chhotelal by hockey and lathi causing them injuries. P. W-4 Janardan Prasad also corroborated the incident of marpeet of complainant Divakar Prasad Pandey, Deputy ranger Forest at Amarpatan Forest Depot because of dispute over supply of bamboos. P. W-2 Dinesh Prasad Shukla, forest Guard, though he did not identify the appellants and the others assailants and was declared hostile by the prosecution, yet he supported this fact that the incident of marpeet with Deputy Ranger and Forest Guard Chhotelal had occurred at about 8 oclock in the morning on 18. 5. 08 over the dispute of supply of bamboos. ( 11. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that none of the witnesses could properly identify the appellants and the others as the assailants and the trial court, therefore, acquitted the other co-accused persons, but erroneously convicted the appellants, who were falsely implicated due to enmity. ( 12. ) ON careful scanning of the entire evidence, it is found that though all the witnesses could not properly identify the appellants as the assailants, yet complainant divakar Prasad (P. W-7) himself clearly named the three appellants as the assailants. The names of the appellants were also specifically mentioned in the written report (Ex. P-7) lodged by the complainant Divakar Prasad Pandey (P. W-7) with the Police soon after the incident. He also clearly deposed that he knew the three appellants much prior to the incident. Thus, there remains no doubt about the identity of the three appellants. ( 13. The names of the appellants were also specifically mentioned in the written report (Ex. P-7) lodged by the complainant Divakar Prasad Pandey (P. W-7) with the Police soon after the incident. He also clearly deposed that he knew the three appellants much prior to the incident. Thus, there remains no doubt about the identity of the three appellants. ( 13. ) ALTHOUGH there was a suggestion in the cross-examination of complainant Divakar Prasad Pandey (P. W-7)that he used to ask for illegal gratification for supplying bamboos and appellants had made a complaint in this regard, which was denied by the complainant (P. W-7), yet the appellants could not take law into their hands and assault the person on duty. Needless to repeat that it was clearly evident from the bulk of evidence on record that there was a dispute over supply of bamboos and then the incident of marpeet began, wherein Deputy Ranger Forest divakar Prasad Pandey (P. W-7) was also assaulted. It is clearly evident from the testimony of complainant divakar Prasad Pandey (P. W-7) coupled with the medical evidence that he was assaulted resulting several injuries on his body. The evidence of Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain (P. W-1)indicates that complainant Divakar Prasad Pandey (P. W-7)had received as many as seven injuries as described by him in his evidence and medical report (Ex. P-1a) and most of them, according to Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain (P. W-1), could not have been caused by fall. There are no reasons to doubt or discard the evidence of Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain (P. W-1), who found number of injuries on the person of complainant divakar Prasad Pandey (P. W-7) on his medical examination on 18. 5. 85. ( 14. ) IN view of the medical evidence, the testimony of complainant Divakar Prasad (P. W-7) could not be disbelieved that he was assaulted by the appellants. The defence evidence also did not shatter the testimony of complainant divakar Prasad Pandey (P. W-7) to the extent that he was assaulted and sustained several injuries. ( 15. 5. 85. ( 14. ) IN view of the medical evidence, the testimony of complainant Divakar Prasad (P. W-7) could not be disbelieved that he was assaulted by the appellants. The defence evidence also did not shatter the testimony of complainant divakar Prasad Pandey (P. W-7) to the extent that he was assaulted and sustained several injuries. ( 15. ) ALTHOUGH due to some embellishment in the testimony of complainant Divakar Prasad Pandey (P. W-7)regarding the implication of other co-accused persons, they were acquitted of all the charges, but that does not entitle the appellants to acquittal, whose names figured in the FIR since the very beginning and who were clearly named by complainant Divakar Prasad Pandey (P. W-7) in his evidence before the Court as the assailants. As reiterated by the Apex court in the case of Gorle S. Naidu V. State of A. P. reported in (2003) 12 SCC page 449 mere acquittal of large number of co-accused persons does not per se entitle others to acquittal; the Court has a duty in such cases to separate the grain from the chaff. If after sieving the untruth or unacceptable portion of the evidence residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, there is no legal bar in convicting a person on the evidence, which has been primarily disbelieved vis-a-vis others. ( 16. ) AS discussed above, the evidence of complainant divakar Prasad (P. W-7) coupled with the medical evidence clearly establishes without any shadow of doubt that the three appellants had assaulted him when he was on duty as a public servant as Deputy Ranger Forest Depot, Amarpatan and caused hurt to him. ( 17. ) IN the wake of foregoing discussion, the conviction of the three appellants under Section 332 of IPC, as recorded by the trial court, does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call any interference in the appeal. ( 18. ) THE impugned sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- (One Thousand Only) to each of the appellants, being already on the lenient side, does not deserve any alteration and modification in the facts and circumstances of the case. Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.