JUDGMENT 1. - Instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2), Criminal Procedure Code by appellants Onkar S/o Heera Bhil and Parthu S/o Dalla Bhil against judgment dated 18.3.1994 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimbahera in Sessions Case No. 7/1993, by which, the trial Court convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 333 and 341, Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of the accused-appellants to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. 2. As per facts of the case, complainant Satya Narayan who was working on the post of Cattle Guard, on 2.11.1992, lodged oral report at Police Station Bhadesar (District Chittorgarh), in which, it is alleged that he was working as Cattle Guard in the Nimbahera Range and his duty was at Sand outpost Kanoj Naka. In the after-noon on 2.11.1992, when the complainant was returning to the outpost at about 2.30 P.M., at that time, the appellants belaboured him and inflicted lathi blows. Upon hearing his cries, Pyari Bai and Nandram Jat came at the place of the occurrence and they intervened. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused persons belaboured him Because he had restrained them from cutting green wood about two months ago. After registration of the F.I.R. under Sections 322, 334, and 341, Indian Penal Code, during the course of investigating Office under Section 333, Indian Penal Code was added; and, charge-sheet was filed against both appellants for commission of the above offences. The charge-sheet was filed by the police before the Magistrate, but, later on, the case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimbahera where the trial took place and appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 333 and 341, Indian Penal Code and sentenced as indicated here in above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, there is no question of committing the offence under Section 333, Indian Penal Code by the appellants. It is also argued that there is no documentary evidence to prove that the complainant was on Government duty at the time of the alleged incident. 4. It is also argued that there is no documentary evidence to prove that the complainant was on Government duty at the time of the alleged incident. 4. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the appellants that as per allegation, the incident took place on the public way where several fields are situated along the way but no independent witness is produced by the prosecution before the Court to prove the allegation of commission of crime. Both Smt. Pyari Bai and Nand Ram Jat, said to be eye-witnesses, did not support the prosecution story for commission of the offence by the appellants, therefore, the trial Court has committed gross error while arriving at the finding that the appellants are guilty for commission of offence under Section 333, Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention towards statement of PW-1 Satya Narayan and submits that upon perusal of his statement it will reveal that his story is totally far from the truth. While inviting attention towards statement of eye-witness Smt. Pyari Bai, it is submitted that the said witness turned hostile before the Court and did not support the prosecution story. Similarly, Nand Ram Jat was also arrayed as eye-witness in the F.I.R. who, too, turned hostile before the. Court and did not support the prosecution story; meaning thereby, there is no material evidence on record to prove that alleged occurrence took place when the complainant Satya Narayan was on Government duty. More so, as per the site plan prepared by the police, the said incident has not occurred in the office or in Government premises, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants are guilty of committing offence under Section 333, Indian Penal Code. 6. learned counsel for the appellants further invited my attention towards statement of PW-7 Prem Chand Jain who was working on the post of Conservator of Forests and submits that as per statement of complainant Satya Narayan he gave information to the said officer after four days of the incident-meaning thereby, the allegation of complainant PW-1 Satya Narayan is far from truth that the occurrence took place while he was on duty, therefore, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted from the charge levelled against them. 7. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that admittedly complainant PW-1 Satya Narayan was working on the post of Cattle Guard and he was assaulted by the appellants because two months ago Satya Narayan had restrained them from cutting green trees which is property of the State. Therefore, when PW-1 Satya Narayan categorically stated in his statement that he was assaulted by the appellants while he was on duty, then, no other evidence is required because his allegation is proved by medical evidence, therefore, argument of learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that as per statement of Prem Chand Jain the day on which the occurrence took place complainant Satya Narayan was working on the post of Cattle Guard, therefore, the finding given by the trial Court for convicting the appellants does not require any interference. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case. 9. The author of the F.I.R. is PW-1 injured Satya Narayan. The said witness categorically stated in his statement that he was assaulted by the appellants; but, in his statement, it is stated by him that Smt. Pyari Bai and Nand Ram Jat came on the spot upon hearing his louts and they protected him but both these witnesses turned hostile before the Court. Further, it emerges from perusal of statement of PW-7 Prem Chand Jain that the complainant was working as Cattle Guard but the fact of the incident was reported to him after four days of occurrence; meaning thereby, two eye-witnesses turned hostile before the Court and PW-7 Prem Chand Jain, Conservator of Forests categorically said that for the first time the incident was reported to him by the complainant after four days of the occurrence. 10. In view of above, it is abundantly clear from the evidence on record that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the occurrence took place when Satya Narayan. PW-1 was or duty. It is settled principle of law for the criminal trial that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt; but, in the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the fact that the injured was assaulted by the appellant when he was performing official duty being a Government servant. It is settled principle of law for the criminal trial that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt; but, in the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the fact that the injured was assaulted by the appellant when he was performing official duty being a Government servant. Therefore, in absence of any cogent evidence to prove.the fact that the incident took place when the complainant was on duty, the conviction is not maintainable. 11. However, on the basis of medical evidence, so also, statements of injured and Medical Officer, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove charge under Section 333, I.P.C. against the appellants but succeeded to prove the offence under Section 325, Indian Penal Code Therefore, the finding given by the trial Court with regard to commission of offence under Section 333, Indian Penal Code by the appellants is hereby quashed and set aside while modifying the finding that the prosecution has proved its case for charge under Section 325, Indian Penal Code against the accused-appellants. 12. As per facts of the case, the incident took place in the year 1992 and, near about two decades have passed by, thereto in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1821 , in Rajendra Harak Chand's case, to secure the ends of justice, I deem it appropriate to hold the appellants guilty for offence under Section 325, Indian Penal Code The appellants are hereby granted benefit of probation. 13. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. As noted above, the sentence awarded to the appellants vide impugned judgment is quashed and set aside and order of conviction is modified. The appellants are held guilty for commission of offence under Section 325, Indian Penal Code But, while granting benefit of probation under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act they are hereby released. Both the appellants are directed to furnish bond of Rs. 10,000/- each before the learned Addl. Sessions judge, Nimbahera for maintaining peace and good conduct for two years. Aforesaid' bond shall be furnished by the appellants within a period of two months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order.Appeal partly allowed. *******