JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. As the above-titled appeals have arisen out of a common judgment of conviction rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Almora on dated 24.2.2003, so are being adjudicated together by this single verdict. 2. Both the appellants along with third accused Hukam Singh (since died), who was none other but their colleague, were tried in Sessions Trial No.80 of 1998, which pertains to police station Bageshwar (as it then was, now independent District Headquarter), for the offences of section 307 and 452 IPC. Co-accused Hukam Singh died during the course of trial, so the proceedings were abated only against him while the rest of the accused persons, who are appellants before this Court, were found guilty by the Trial Judge for the offences as indicated above. They have appropriately been sentenced. 3. The genesis of prosecution is that both the appellants were employed as firemen at the Fire Station Headquarter, Bageshwar. Their controlling officer was PW1 Munnu Lal, Station Officer, who resided at a distance of almost 300 yards in a rented accommodation of his landlord PW2 Ratan Singh. 4. On the fateful night of 2/3-10-1998 at about 1 AM, accused Devendra Pal (A1), Gulam Mustafa (A2) and Hukam Singh (A3) came at the residence of PW1 and knocked his door. PW1 woke up, switched on the light and opened the door. No sooner the door was opened, A1, A2 and A3, having batons and Lathis in their hands, pounced over the victim and began to beat him bitterly. He was severely injured. He raised the screams, on hearing the shrieks, PW2 Ratan Singh, taking another tenant Lalit Prasad (scribe of FIR) with him, came at the spot and witnessed the occurrence. At the intervention of PW2 and Lalit Prasad, victim was saved. Assailants then left the spot. 5. PW2 Ratan Singh then informed to the local police station wherefrom the S.H.O. Shailendra Bhardwaj rushed to the spot. He shifted the injured Munnu Lal to Community Health Center (Government Hospital) Bageshwar, where he was primarily examined in the same intervening night at 2:45 AM by the Emergency Medical Officer. The doctor found as many as 18 injuries on the body of victim, including two fractures, one was in the right and left ulna shaft and another was in the right 5th Metacarpal. The doctor found as many as 18 injuries on the body of victim, including two fractures, one was in the right and left ulna shaft and another was in the right 5th Metacarpal. Besides, several injuries were kept under observation and for the correct assessment, their X-ray was advised. The doctor opined that injury nos.11, 17 and 18 were grievous in nature. However, for further better treatment, the victim was shifted to the Base Hospital, Almora, District Headquarter. Since his condition was still critical, so the doctor referred him to the next higher center on 09.10.1998. The brother, son and other relatives of victim carried him to the Medical College, Allahabad where he remained admitted for five months, as has been deposed by PW1. After being physically fit, he returned to his duties. 6. By then, the first information report had been lodged by the landlord Ratan Singh having the same been scribed by Lalit Prasad, which is Ex.Ka-3. Chick report is Ex.Ka-6. It was recorded soon after the incident i.e. in the same intervening night at 1:30 A.M. 7. Police investigated the matter, submitted chargesheet for the offences of section 452, 307, 332, 333 and 325 IPC. But the learned Sessions Judge levelled the charges only for the offences of section 452 and 307 IPC. 8. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW1 Munnu Lal (victim) and PW2 Ratan Singh (landlord/reporter), whereas remaining prosecution witnesses are the doctors and Station House Officer. 9. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., appellants have denied the occurrence and stated that at the time of incident, they were present at the fire station. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the State Counsel, the Court feels that it is a case of brazen indiscipline went to the extent of dare devilish revenge on the part of appellants protesting to recording of their absence from duty by PW1 at the fire station. PW1 Munnu Lal at 22:30 PM came to the fire-station to check whether the fire-personnel were present in their duty or not. He found the firemen A1, A2 and A3 along with two others Surendra Kumar and Ganesh Ram absent. So, he got reported their absence in the general diary of the fire-station at serial no.24 by G.D. Writer Jagat Singh. He found the firemen A1, A2 and A3 along with two others Surendra Kumar and Ganesh Ram absent. So, he got reported their absence in the general diary of the fire-station at serial no.24 by G.D. Writer Jagat Singh. PW1 remained at the said Station up to 23:15 PM and got recorded the second entry no.25 to the effect that the Watchman, namely, Roop Singh was present on his duty in his Uniform. Then PW1 returned to his residence. It transpires that meanwhile, the absentees got information about the sudden check by PW1. On this, accused Gulam Mustafa returned to his duty at 23:30 PM while Devendra Pal and Hukam Singh returned at 00:10 AM (12:10 AM). Feeling annoyed by the action of Station Officer that their absence had been got recorded by him in the general diary, they planned to commit this incident and thus, reached at the dwelling place of PW1 and executed their plan, as stated above. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the trial court has based its findings only on the evidence of PW1 Munnu Lal, injured and there is only a partial supporting evidence of PW2 Ratan Singh. Here, it can be mentioned that PW1 was the Fire Station Officer who had served the Institution for 34 years by the date of incident, while the accused persons were running in their mid twenties. They were quite young men, so it can be estimated that they would have been recruited only a few years ago. There was no grudge of PW1 against the accused/appellants to implicate them falsely. It was well within the duties of PW1 to ensure the attendance of all the employees at the fire-station who were deputed to work at a given time because such duties are very sensible and emergent in nature. So the absence from the duty, or indiscipline on the part of any employee/fireman, could have been fatal to the public interest. The manner, in which accused persons have committed the incident, shows that it was diabolically conceived by them, finding their absence recorded in the general diary of the Station, they cruelly executed the same. So the absence from the duty, or indiscipline on the part of any employee/fireman, could have been fatal to the public interest. The manner, in which accused persons have committed the incident, shows that it was diabolically conceived by them, finding their absence recorded in the general diary of the Station, they cruelly executed the same. The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that as stated by PW1 in his deposition, the accused persons were threatening PW2, landlord as well as the scribe of FIR, not to depose in the Court and they succeeded in restraining Lalit Prasad (scribe) from making his appearance in the court, and at the same time, they could succeed in making PW2 Ratan Parihar hostile to some extent on the strength of a threat to kill his only son. It can significantly be noted that PW1 and PW2 both appeared to get their evidence recorded in the Court on 3.11.1999 but the accused persons moved adjournment application (23-Kha) and did not permit the Court to record the cross-examination of PW2 Ratan Singh till he was won over at the strength of such threat, as has been stated above, and the Court was permitted to record his cross-examination on 26.11.1999 i.e. after three weeks of his chief-examination. It can also be noted here that since the victim, an Officer-grade man could not be made hostile, so learned defence counsel cross-examined him on next day of his chief-examination i.e. on 4.11.1999. So, the manner, the accused persons succeeded, in winning over PW2, cannot be lost sight of. 12. Even then PW2 has not been declared fully hostile, as he has supported the prosecution version in his chief-examination in the same manner, as deposed by PW1. In his cross-examination, PW2 has only partially changed his statement to the effect that he saw the accused persons while they were taking to their heels. It is also sufficient to corroborate the veracity of version of PW1. PW3 Dr. N.D. Punetha has opined that the injuries caused to the victim were so serious in nature that, if the proper treatment would not have extended to him, those were sufficient to cause his death. 13. It is also sufficient to corroborate the veracity of version of PW1. PW3 Dr. N.D. Punetha has opined that the injuries caused to the victim were so serious in nature that, if the proper treatment would not have extended to him, those were sufficient to cause his death. 13. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards a judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar dated 23.4.2002 wherein the fireman Surendra Kumar was prosecuted for making wrong entries in the G.D. showing the false presence of A1, A2 and A3. In that Trial, Surendra, Scribe of G.D., was acquitted. I feel that this, by itself, does not affect the merits of the case at all nor it is sufficient to show that at the time of incident, accused persons were present at the fire-station because when the gross indiscipline in the fire-station was rampant that they even could dare to beat their Controlling Officer, then it was not unusual for them to get recorded any entry of their choice in the G.D. of the fire-station. Even after so recording of their presence after 1-2 hours of the sudden inspection of the controlling officer, there was none at the fire-station to ensure their presence there, because the accused persons were completely uncontrolled personnel and so could dare to reach at the dwelling place of PW1 and beat him in such an unruly manner. 14. So, in view of what has been stated above, the Court feels that there is no merit in these appeals which are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. Impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of both the appellants is affirmed. Let they be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence so awarded to them by the trial court. 15. A copy of this judgment and order along with L.C.R. be transmitted to the court concerned for compliance.