Judgment : Indermeet Kaur, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 20.12.2005 & 21.12.2005 respectively wherein appellants Ranbir Singh @ Pappu and Rajesh @ Kala had been convicted under Sections 147/148/186/332/333/342/353 of the IPC. The charge-sheet had been filed against four persons but the other two persons namely Sunil and Dayanand stood acquitted. 2. Both the accused/appellants had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1 year for the offence under Sections 147/148 of the IPC; RI for 2 months for offence under Section 186 of the IPC; for offence under Section 332/333, they were sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each; for the offence under Section 342 of the IPC, they had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each; for the offence under Section 353, they had been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 years. There was a further direction that in default of payment of fine, the convicts would undergo RI for 3 months. All the sentences were to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. had been granted to the appellants. 3. Record shows that on 02.09.1997, a police party comprising of special staff, south-west district were on patrolling duty and had proceeded from Dhaula Kuan to Najafgarh. The parties comprised of HC Anand Prakash (PW-2), constable Abhay Singh (PW-1), constable Vijender (PW-12) and constable Ashok Kumar (PW-8). At about 11 PM, they reached the Dhasa bus stand, Najafgarh. A secret information was received that Rajesh and Ranbir were loading liquor in their truck; on receipt of this information, the police party proceeded towards Prem Nagar; a truck was spotted lying parked in a vacant plot. Accused Pappu and Rajesh were present there. Liquor was being unloaded from the truck and load into a Tata vehicle; members of the raiding party felt that they would be outnumbered by the accused; they accordingly thought of going back for reinforcement. In the meanwhile, the accused saw the police party and did not allow them to escape. The accused persons exhorted them; Pappu and Rajesh were accompanied by other companions. PW-2 managed to escape; he gave the information about the incident at the local police station of Najafgarh. This information was passed on to SI Bhagwati Prasad (PW-14) who reached the spot. The accused persons exhorted them; Pappu and Rajesh were accompanied by other companions. PW-2 managed to escape; he gave the information about the incident at the local police station of Najafgarh. This information was passed on to SI Bhagwati Prasad (PW-14) who reached the spot. The miscreants had in the meanwhile ran away along with the truck and tempo. In this incident, PW-8, PW-12 and PW-1 sustained injuries. They were medically examined at the Safdarjung Hospital. The MLC of PW-8 (ExPW-4/2) revealed a fracture; his injury was opined to be grievous. The accused persons were arrested on 08.09.1997. 4. The prosecution in support of its case had examined 14 witnesses. As noted supra, PW-1, PW-8 & PW-12 had sustained injuries. Grievous injury had been sustained by PW-8. He has on oath deposed that while he was on patrolling duty with the other members of the raiding party i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-12, they saw liquor being loaded and unloaded at Prem Nagar from a truck into tempo; accused Rajesh and Pappu were present there; they were accompanied by other persons also. They spotted the police party and threatened them. They brought out dandas and lathis from the truck and assaulted the complainant party as a result of which PW-8 sustained injuries on his face, arm and legs. Meanwhile when PW-2 who had managed to escape reached back along with other police officers, the accused persons fled away. PW-1 did not attribute any role to the other two accused i.e. Dayanand and Sunil. In his cross-examination, PW-8 had stuck to his stand. He could not be discredited. He reiterated that after sustaining injuries, he felt unconscious and did not know what had happened thereafter. 5. The MLC of PW-8 had been proved as Ex.PW-4/2 through Dr. Sita Lakshmi (PW-4). There were injuries noted on his right thigh and right leg. He was referred to the X-ray department for further investigation. His X-ray plate has been proved as Ex.PW-4/5. The chest X-ray was conducted and his right inferior orbital margin was noted to be broken. The opinion on his injuries was thus noted to be grievous. 6. PW-1 had also sustained injuries in this incident. He was referred to the X-ray department for further investigation. His X-ray plate has been proved as Ex.PW-4/5. The chest X-ray was conducted and his right inferior orbital margin was noted to be broken. The opinion on his injuries was thus noted to be grievous. 6. PW-1 had also sustained injuries in this incident. He has corroborated the version of PW-8 and has specifically attributed a role to Pappu and Rajesh who were present along with 10-15 other persons and had given merciless beatings with lathis to PW-12, PW-8 and to himself. In his cross-examination, he admitted that it was dark at the time of incident; he knew the accused Rajesh and Pappu although he did not know the other co-accused Dayanand and Sunil. 7. PW-12 has also deposed on the same lines as PW-1 and PW-8. He has reiterated that the accused persons i.e. Rajesh and Pappu were armed which lathis and started beating them. In fact PW-12 has also attributed a role to Dayanand and Sunil but as noted supra, the aforenoted persons have been acquitted. PW-12 had deposed that Ranbir had given a lathi blow on his forehead and his other colleagues were also beaten by other accused. The MLC of PW12 was proved as Ex.PW-4/A. Bruises were noted upon his person. X-ray report Ex.PW-4/4 had evidenced no bony injury. The injuries on his persons were opined as blunt. He was discharged on the same day. 8. PW-2 who was also a part of the raiding party had managed to escape and he had informed the local police station i.e. PS Najafgarh. PW-2 had identified both the accused persons correctly as part of the team who had attacked his colleagues. 9. The Investigating Officer (PW-14) on receiving information in the local police station from PW-2 had reached the spot where he found the injured i.e. PW-8 and PW-2 lying at the spot. The PCR van had also reached the spot and injured were removed to the hospital. The lathis and dandas were seized from the spot and were taken into possession vide Ex.PW-2/DB; the site plan (Ex.PW-2/DA) was prepared. It was on the basis of the aforenoted evidence which has been collected by the prosecution that the accused persons were convicted for the aforenoted offences and sentenced accordingly. 10. On behalf of the appellants, arguments had been addressed in details. On merit, there is two-fold submission. It was on the basis of the aforenoted evidence which has been collected by the prosecution that the accused persons were convicted for the aforenoted offences and sentenced accordingly. 10. On behalf of the appellants, arguments had been addressed in details. On merit, there is two-fold submission. The first submission is that no specific role has been attributed to the accused persons; attention has been drawn to the versions of PW-8 and PW-1 to substantiate this submission. To support this submission, reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of a Bench of this Court in Naresh Kumar Vs. State decided on 20.11.2009 in Crl. Appeal No.255/1999; submission being that where in that case also, the injured had come into the witness box and did not speak a word about use of danda by the appellant, benefit of doubt had been given in favour of the appellant. The second submission on merits is that DD No. 3A which had been recorded in the local police station pursuant to which the investigation of this incident has commenced has not been proved in the absence of which benefit of doubt must accrue in favour of the appellant. To support this submission, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. Appeal No.37/1994 Gendial and others Vs. the State of M.P. In the alternate arguments have been addressed on sentence. It is pointed out that the offence relates to the year 1997 and it is more that 1- ½ decade old; much time has gone-bye and keeping in view that the fact no criminal antecedent is attached to the appellant, leniency has been prayed for in the sentence and to support this submission reliance has been placed upon a bench of this Court in Krishan Kumar Vs. State decided on 19.08.2013 in Crl. Appeal No.135/2004 where on the period already undergone which was a period of 9 months, the appellant although convicted under Section 333/308 had been sentenced accordingly. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported as Krishan Lal & Anr. Vs. State in Crl. Appeal No.1102/2002 decided on 10.02.2009 where also the conviction under Section 333 of the IPC had been maintained and the sentence of 2 years had been reduced to the period already undergone. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported as Krishan Lal & Anr. Vs. State in Crl. Appeal No.1102/2002 decided on 10.02.2009 where also the conviction under Section 333 of the IPC had been maintained and the sentence of 2 years had been reduced to the period already undergone. In this judgment, however what was the period undergone by the appellant is not borne out. 11. Arguments have been refuted by the learned APP for the State. It is pointed out that police personnel have been injured and on no count, on merit, does the impugned judgment call for any interference. It is pointed out that the versions of PW-8, PW-1 and PW-12 coupled with the testimony of PW-2 and PW-12 are coherent and cogent; they are supported by the medical evidence which is in the nature of the MLC of the injured. PW-8 had suffered a fracture. In case the appellants are allowed to scot free, a wrong message would go in the society and in this view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant cannot be disturbed. On point of sentence, it is pointed out that the appellants has only undergone a period of 20 days and keeping in the time period, leniency in the sentence should not be awarded. 12. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused. 13. On merits, the conviction of the appellants does not call for any interference. Testimony of PW-8 who had received grievous injuries in this incident is cogent, coherent and credible. There is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve his oral version which is fully supported by the MLC and X-ray report which shows that he has suffered a fracture in orbital region. His version has been fully corroborated by the testimony of other members of patrolling duty who were also a part of the incident and in fact, they had received injuries i.e. PW-1 and PW-12. Their versions for no reason can be disbelieved. The MLC of PW-12 is also on record. This medical document besides the fact has been un-assailed is fully corroborative of the oral testimonies of other members. PW-2 had managed to escape. He had also identified the accused persons as the persons who had attached his colleagues. Specific role has been attributed to the appellants by all the eye-witness i.e. PW1, PW8 and PW12. This medical document besides the fact has been un-assailed is fully corroborative of the oral testimonies of other members. PW-2 had managed to escape. He had also identified the accused persons as the persons who had attached his colleagues. Specific role has been attributed to the appellants by all the eye-witness i.e. PW1, PW8 and PW12. As far as the DD entry is concerned PW10 had come into witness box and had deposed that the record including this DD entry had been destroyed; however non-proof of the DD would not discredit the otherwise well proven case of the prosecution; it is not as if the incident has been denied. Thus the judgments of Naresh Kumar and Gendial (supa) relied upon by the defence counsel do not come to his aid. 14. In this background, the conviction of the appellants for having caused a grievous injury to a public servant while they were on duty cannot be disturbed; it has to be sustained. The conviction of the appellants under the aforenoted sections is maintained. 15. However on the point of sentence, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view. The maximum sentence awarded to the appellants is RI of 2 years which is for the offence under Sections 332/333 of the IPC. Cumulative fine of Rs.1,000/- has also been imposed. This Court has been informed that the fine has since been paid. The offence is more than 14-15 years old. The accused were young at the time when the incident had occurred. They were in early 20’s. The sentence of the appellants had in fact been suspended by the trial Court itself in order that an appeal could be filed in the higher Court. It was suspended by this Court on 20.01.2006. The appellants had remained in custody as under trial for about 20 days. 16. In this background, the sentence of the appellant is modified and they are sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 6 months. The sentence of fine shall remain unaltered. Bail bonds of the appellants are accordingly cancelled. They be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence. 17. Appeal disposed off.