JUDGMENT M. Jeyapaul, J(Oral). 1. A-1 Pritam Singh, A-2 Jasbir Singh, A-3 Dalbir Singh, A-4 Ajit Singh and A-5 Mohinder Singh faced the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar. A-1 to A-3 were convicted but A-4 and A-5 were acquitted by the trial Court. A-1 Pritam Singh, who was convicted for the offences under Sections 333, 353 and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, A-2 Jasbir Singh and A-3 Dalbir Singh, who were convicted for offences under Sections 332, 353 and 333 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have preferred the present appeal. 2. It is reported that 1st accused Pritam Singh had passed away during the pendency of the appeal. The same is verified by the respondent-State and reported that the first accused Pritam Singh had died. Therefore, the appeal qua the 1st accused/1st appellant Pritam Singh abated. Prosecution Case:- 3. a) It is a case of the prosecution that on 12.06.1996 at about 00.30 hours, PW-2 Manmohan Singh Walia, Engineer accompanied by PW-3 R.L. Agnihotri, PW-4 Malkiat Singh and PW-5 Ajit Singh were in the process of checking the illegal consumption of electricity at the fields in Cheta village. The residential farm house of the 1st accused Pritam Singh was thoroughly checked. The Inspection Party found that the motor fixed by the 1st accused Pritam Singh was run on a single phase. The domestic light was also connected directly from the tubewell motor. The condenser fixed was removed. b) After having checked another motor, the Inspection Party started returning. The 1st accused Pritam Singh armed with kirpan, the 2nd accused Jasbir Singh and 3rd accused Dalbir Singh each armed with gandasi confronted it (Inspection Party) by saying that they were thieves. The Inspection Team having informed that they hailed from Punjab Electricity Board, showed their identity cards. In spite of that, the 1st accused Pritam Singh gave a kirpan blow on PW-3 R.L. Agnihotri, the 2nd accused gave a gandasi blow on the back of the left knee of PW-3 and the 3rd accused Dalbir Singh gave a gandasi blow to PW-4 Malkiat Singh on his right wrist. The 2nd accused Jasbir Singh also gave a gandasi blow on the back of the left knee of PW-5 Ajit Singh. He also caused injuries to the private parts of PW-4 Malkiat Singh. After leaving behind shoes and torch etc. The 2nd accused Jasbir Singh also gave a gandasi blow on the back of the left knee of PW-5 Ajit Singh. He also caused injuries to the private parts of PW-4 Malkiat Singh. After leaving behind shoes and torch etc. they came down to Katarian Police Post and narrated the entire occurrence to Balbir Singh, Head Constable and thereafter they proceeded to the Civil Hospital, Mahilpur for their treatment. c) Bikker Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector came to the hospital and recorded statement Ex.PG of the injured witness Ajit Singh, PW-5. A formal First Information Report Ex.PG/2 was registered. The blood stained clothes Ex.P4, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 were recovered from PW-3 R.L. Agnihotri. The articles left behind by the injured witnesses namely shoe Ex.P7, another shoe Ex.P8 and torch light Ex.P-9 were recovered under memo Ex.PE. A-1 to A-3 were arrested on 14.06.1996 and remanded to judicial custody. Based on the disclosure statement given by the nd accused Jasbir Singh Kirpan Ex.P10, gandasi Ex.P-11 condenser Ex.P-13 and electric wire Ex.P12 were recovered from the heap of dried dung cakes near the house of A-3. PW-1 Dr. Dilbag Rai examined PW-3 R.L. Agnihotri on 12.06.1996 and found incised wound on the back of his right arm. PW-3 R.L. Agnihotri also complained of pain in his left shoulder. The copy of the MLR was marked as Ex.PA. d) PW-1 Dilbag Rai also examined on the very same day PW-5 Ajit Singh and found contusion on the back of the left lower part of his thigh. An abrasion in the middle of the right shin was also noted down by him. He issued MLR Ex.PC qua PW-5 Ajit Singh. e) He also examined on the very same day PW-4 Malkiat Singh and found swelling on the dorsum of the right wrist joint. A contusion was also found. The injured was kept under observation. He issued MLR Ex.PD qua PW-4 Malkiat Singh. f) PW-10 Dr. Surinder Gangar, Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur took x-ray of PW-5 Ajit Singh and PW-3 R.L. Agnihotri. He reported that there was no fracture noted in the x-ray of PW-5 Ajit Singh but there was a fracture noted in the x-ray of PW-3 R.L. Agnihotri taken by her. g) PW-13 Bikker Singh, ASI having completed investigation, filed final report against all the five accused. Statement of Accused: 4. He reported that there was no fracture noted in the x-ray of PW-5 Ajit Singh but there was a fracture noted in the x-ray of PW-3 R.L. Agnihotri taken by her. g) PW-13 Bikker Singh, ASI having completed investigation, filed final report against all the five accused. Statement of Accused: 4. The incriminating circumstances spoken to by the witnesses on the side of the prosecution were put to the accused, who responded saying that when the electricity supply of the village Cheta went off, a mob attacked the prosecution witnesses on the impression that they were thieves. Submission on the side of Defence:- 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that as the occurrence had unfolded during the mid of night, the prosecution witnesses would have never seen the assailants. A case of mob attack was converted as a case of individual attack launched by the accused. It is his further submission that there was no material to show that all the accused acted in unison in furtherance of their common intention to attack the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, it is his submission that the accused were entitled to acquittal. Submission on the side of the State:- 6. Per contra, the learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the injured witnesses have clearly identified the accused as the assailants in the occurrence. The very fact that all the accused had acted in unison would go to show that they have perpetrated the crime in furtherance of their common intention. As it has been established by the prosecution that the accused did launch murderous attack on the officials attached to the Punjab Electricity Department during discharge of their duty, the trial Court has rightly convicted them, it is submitted. Discussion:- 7. It is true that the occurrence took place on 12.06.1996 athours. The material witnesses namely PW-2 Manmohan Singh Walia, PW-3 R.L. Agnihotri, PW-4 Malkiat Singh and PW-5 Ajit Singh have cogently spoken to the fact that the 1st accused Pritam Singh was very much present at the time when the inspection was conducted by PW-2 Manmohan Singh Walia with his team members. PW-2 to PW-5 have further deposed that they owned torches at the time of inspection. Therefore, the evidence of PW-2 to PW-5 that they could identify the accused A-1 to A-3 perpetrating the crime during mid of night cannot be doubted. PW-2 to PW-5 have further deposed that they owned torches at the time of inspection. Therefore, the evidence of PW-2 to PW-5 that they could identify the accused A-1 to A-3 perpetrating the crime during mid of night cannot be doubted. There is no reason for PW-2 to PW-5 to falsely implicate the accused A-1 to A-3 in this case. Though it has been projected by the accused that there was a mob attack in which the prosecution party sustained injuries, there was no evidence led on their side in support of their defence. 8. PW-3 R.L. Agnihotri, PW-4 Malkiat Singh and PW-5 Ajit Singh have categorically spoken to the injuries sustained by them at the hands of A-2 Jasbir Singh and A-3 Dalbir Singh. The evidence of PW-10 Dr. Surinder Gangar, Radiologist and PW-1 Dr. Dilbag Rai and the medical reports submitted by PW-1 would also establish that PW-3 R.L. Agnihotri, PW-4 Malkiat Singh and PW-5 Ajit Singh had sustained simple injuries in the attack launched by A-2 Jasbir Singh and A-3 Dalbir Singh. 9. Admittedly, no identification parade was conducted by the investigating officials. After the inspection was completed, the attack was initiated by the deceased 1st accused Pritam Singh and the 2nd and 3rd accused on their part launched their attack against PW-3 R.L. Agnihotri, PW-4 Malkiat Singh and PW-5 Ajit Singh. There is virtually no material to establish on the side of the prosecution that A-2 Jasbir Singh and A-3 Dalbir Singh acted in unison in furtherance of their common intention to attack the government officials. It appears that the accused having protested the inspection conducted by PW-2 alongwith his accompanying officials at the mid of night, launched attack on the Inspection officials. Therefore each of the accused is individually liable to be convicted for the offences they committed. 10. In view of the above, while modifying the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the trial Court upon A-2 Jasbir Singh and A-3 Dalbir Singh, they are convicted only for the offences under Sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code only and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for each of the offences. 11. With the aforesaid modification conviction and quantum of sentence, the appeal is dismissed. 12. 11. With the aforesaid modification conviction and quantum of sentence, the appeal is dismissed. 12. Since the 2nd accused / 2nd appellant Jasbir Singh and the 3rd accused/3rd appellant Dalbir Singh are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of law to comply with the judgment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the same, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appeal dismissed.