Judgment Surinder Singh, J. Appellant herein was chargesheeted and tried along with his-co-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code generating from FIR No. 537 of 2000 dated 23.9.2000 registered in Police Station, Una, H.P. At the end of the trial, he was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court under Section 332 with the aid of Section 34 Indian Penal along with other co-accused persons to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months, whereas the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was not proved as such he and other co-accused were acquitted for the attempted murder of H.C. Naresh Kumar. 2. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. Co-accused S/Sh. Amrish Rana, Harjinder Singh and Gurjant Singh were already lodging in sub-jail Una as under-trial prisoners. On 23.9.2000, ASI Dhrub Kumar was heading the escort party and visited the jail for taking under trial prisoner Harjinder Singh for medical check-up to district hospital. ASI Dhrub Kumar reached out side the gate but constable Vijay Kumar along with H.C. Naresh Kumar went inside to take Harjinder Singh out after completing formalities. But Harjinder Singh asked as to who was the leader of the escort party, he should be called inside. But Dhrub Kumar ASI did not go inside. Thereafter Harjinder Singh came out of the small gate of the jail premises where Amrish Rana the other co-accused was already there. They caught-hold of said Dhrub Kumar and started giving beatings to him. The appellant herein handed over a piece of brick to Harjinder Singh on being asked with which Harjinder Singh caused bleeding injury to H.C. Naresh Kumar. The jail officials and the other police officials present there rescued the police officers from the clutches of the accused persons. It is alleged that prior to the incident on 18.9.2000, ASI Dhrub Kumar had escorted Harjinder Singh for his production in the Court at Balachour (Pb.). From there, he was taken to Nawanshahar for his production in another Court but during the night he was kept in the police station whereas Harjinder Singh wanted that he should be lodged in a hotel. From there, he was taken to Nawanshahar for his production in another Court but during the night he was kept in the police station whereas Harjinder Singh wanted that he should be lodged in a hotel. Whereas Gurjant Singh co-accused is alleged to have provoked his accomplices to beat the police officials. 3. The matter was reported to police. A case was registered in terms of FIR No. 537 of 2000 in the police station. The injured were got medically examined. Police took into possession the piece of brick Ext. P1 and all other relevant documents regarding appointment and posting of the complainant and other police officials. Ultimately prepared the challan and presented in the Court for the trial of the accused persons. 4. The offence of attempted murder was not proved, as such appellant along with other co-accused were acquitted but finding a case under Section 332 Indian Penal Code voluntarily causing hurt to deter police officials from discharging their official duties, in furtherance of their common intention they were held guilty, accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, appellant filed the present appeal, alleging false implication. 6. Shri N.K. Thakur learned Senior Advocate vehemently argued that the jail officials had turned hostile and the police officials were interested witnesses. There has been material contradictions in their statements and further that appellant was not a jail inmate and he had come only to meet Harjinder Singh being his relative and was wrongly roped in the case. 7. Contra Shri P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and referred to the evidence on record which, according to him, was rightly believed by the learned trial court and is devoid of any material contradiction which could shake the very foundation of prosecution case. 8. I have examined the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully reappraised the evidence on record. 9. Admittedly PW1 ASI Dhrub Kumar, PW2 H.C. Naresh Kumar, PW3 HC Balbir Singh and PW4 constable Vijay Kumar were posted in police line Una. They were deputed to take Harjinder Singh an under trial prisoner for medical check-up to district hospital Una. The departure report of the police escort party is recorded in the daily diary Ext. PW10/A. 10. 9. Admittedly PW1 ASI Dhrub Kumar, PW2 H.C. Naresh Kumar, PW3 HC Balbir Singh and PW4 constable Vijay Kumar were posted in police line Una. They were deputed to take Harjinder Singh an under trial prisoner for medical check-up to district hospital Una. The departure report of the police escort party is recorded in the daily diary Ext. PW10/A. 10. PW1 ASI Dhrub Kumar testified that on reaching jail along with H.C. Naresh Kumar and constable Vijay Kumar aforesaid, they noticed Harjinder Singh co-accused along with Amrish Rana and Gurjant Singh present on the entry gate. Constable Vijay Kumar aforesaid got the formalities recorded to take the custody of Harjinder Singh and entered inside the small gate. He noticed that Harjinder Singh, Amrish Rana and Gurjant were already standing inside the jail complex along with jail guard. PW4 Vijay Kumar aforesaid testified that on having asked as to who is escorting the hospital, he disclosed that it was PW1 ASI Dhrub Kmar. On this, they sent a message to call Dhrub Kumar inside but he refused to go inside the jail as he was having arms. Thereafter Amrish Rana and Harjinder Singh came out of the gate of the jail and accused Harjinder Singh caught-hold of ASI Dhrub Kumar and Amrish Rana caught hold of Naresh Kumar and started fisticuffing them. He further stated that he along with HC Balbir Singh and constable Ranbir Singh had intervened with the help of some jail officials. They saved H.C. Naresh Kumar from the clutches of the assailants. Gurjant Singh was alleged to have exhorted the other accused persons. Amrish Rana had caught hold of PW1 ASI Dhrub Kumar under his arm pit from his neck and threw him on the ground and started pressing his throat. Harjinder Singh caught-hold of Head Constable Naresh Kumar and asked the appellant, who was standing nearby to hand over him a piece of brick lying there to which he did. With the help of brick (Ext. P1). Harjinder Singh hit HC Naresh Kumar causing bleeding injury on his head. This statement has been fully corroborated by PW2 HC Naresh Kumar and further corroboration has been offered by PW1 ASI Dhrub Kumar. 11. All these witnesses were meticulously cross-examined but nothing material could be extracted from them, in so far as the role of the present appellant is concerned. 12. This statement has been fully corroborated by PW2 HC Naresh Kumar and further corroboration has been offered by PW1 ASI Dhrub Kumar. 11. All these witnesses were meticulously cross-examined but nothing material could be extracted from them, in so far as the role of the present appellant is concerned. 12. ASI Dhrub Kumar and HC Naresh Kumar aforesaid were got medically examined from PW12 Dr. V.K. Raizada. Dhrub Kumar sustained three injuries which were simple in nature and his medico legal certificate is Ext. PW1/B. The doctor noticed lacerated wound over the frontal region of scalp of HC Naresh Kumar which was of the size 3.5 cmx1/2 cm x ½ cm irregular reddish in colour, bleeding and adjoining area was swollen. The injury was simple in nature and the weapon used was opined to be blunt. The said injury was alleged to have caused during the period 6 hours from the time of examination and the medical legal certificate is Ext. PW2/A. In his opinion, injury on the person of HC Naresh Kumar can be caused with a piece of brick Ext. P1 which was taken into possession from the spot by the police during the investigation and the said injury, in the opinion of the doctor was not dangerous to life. When confronted with the above circumstances in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant had denied this fact. However, no specific defence was raised by him. 13. On culling out the above evidence I find that the appellant happened to be present there to meet Harjinder Singh accused, a distant relative. The incident took place in his presence. He had supplied a piece of brick Ext. P1 to Harjinder Singh on his asking with which he caused injury to PW2 HC Naresh Kumar. He himself is not directly involved in assaulting or hitting any of the police officials present on the spot. Since he had assisted Harjinder Singh to commit the said offence, in my considered opinion, he also facilitated by supplying the brick for voluntarily causing hurt to deter police officials from discharging their official duties. Therefore, the conviction for the offence aforesaid was rightly recorded for the said offence with the aid of Section 34 Indian Penal Code; and cannot be interfered with. Therefore, the conviction for the offence aforesaid was rightly recorded for the said offence with the aid of Section 34 Indian Penal Code; and cannot be interfered with. However, keeping in view the role played by the appellant, definitely the sentence imposed on him is on a higher side. 14. Shri N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Shri Surinder Kumar submitted for leniency in sentence in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. He also pointed out that there is no previous criminal history to his credit and further that the appellant remained in custody during the investigation and trial for nearly about 17 months. 15. I have perused the record. The perusal of zimini order of the learned trial Court shows that the appellant had remained in jail during the investigation from 23.9.2000 to 15.1.2001 and further w.e.f. 18.9.2001 to 26.2.2002. Thereafter w.e.f. 18.8.2004 to 19.3.2005 when he was actually bailed out pursuant to the orders of this Court in appeal. Thus, total period to which he has undergone comes around 17 months. 16. Keeping in view the role played by the appellant and the punishment provided under the law, his substantive sentence is reduced to one year and while maintaining fine, the default clause is also reduced to two months by giving him the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant had served the sentence of approximately for one year and 5 months which is more than the sentence now imposed and modified; no action is required to be now taken against him as having served the sentence in conformity with this judgment. Thus, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed subject to the modification in sentence which stands served by him, as aforesaid. The matter stands disposed of.