JUDGMENT : A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 26.07.2002 passed by 4th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola in Regular Criminal Case No.812/2001, recording an order of acquittal of respondent-Ajay of offences punishable under Section 353 and 332 of the Indian penal Code, the instant appeal against acquittal was filed by the State of Maharashtra. Facts: 2. On 22.12.2000 at about 06.15 p.m. at Central Jail, Akola, respondent-accused assaulted the Jailer and other staff of jail while they were discharging their official duties and were conducting search operation of the prisoners. FIR was lodged by Jailor PW3-Swati Sathe on the same day with City Kotwali Police Station, Akola, and Crime No.252/2000 was registered against the respondent-accused. The police completed investigation and filed charge-sheet on 29.07.2001. The respondent was charged for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 of the IPC and since he denied the charge, the trial was held. The trial Judge acquitted the respondent-accused. Hence this appeal. Submissions: 3. In support of the appeal, learned A.P.P. for the appellant-State, vehemently argued that there is voluminous evidence on record, that was tendered by the prosecution, which has not even been properly seen and appreciated by the learned trial Judge. On the contrary, the reasons given by the learned trial Judge are perfunctory, without substance and a totally perverse approach has been adopted by the learned trial Judge in the matter. The learned A.P.P. for the State, inviting my attention to the entire evidence, that was tendered before the trial Court, submitted that the impugned judgment is nothing but perverse and has caused miscarriage of justice to the State. He, therefore, prayed for reversal of the order of acquittal. 4. The respondent-accused was served with a notice when the appeal was admitted by this Court on 19.12.2002 and action under Section 390 of the Cr.P.C. was also ordered. Though served, he did not appear before this Court. After about 13 years, the appeal came up for hearing before the Court on 06.04.2015 when, due to non appearance of the respondent, this Court issued bailable warrant against the respondent in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The report dated 03.06.2015 shows that bailable warrant was received back by the office, duly executed. He did not appear. On 01.07.2015, this Court issued non bailable warrant for his arrest. 10,000/-. The report dated 03.06.2015 shows that bailable warrant was received back by the office, duly executed. He did not appear. On 01.07.2015, this Court issued non bailable warrant for his arrest. However, the report has been received that attempt to find him out have not proved successful and neither father of the respondent nor others are ready to give address of the respondent. Now, since the respondent was already served in the year 2002 when the appeal was admitted and again bailable warrant was also served, this Court decided to appoint an Advocate for the respondent and accordingly Mrs. Pranita Chobe, Advocate was appointed for the respondent. The learned appointed counsel was furnished all the copies of the documents and was asked to remain present for final hearing. On 13.07.2015, the appeal was called out for hearing. However, counsel for the appellant remained absent. Therefore, the appeal was adjourned to 14.07.2015 as part heard. On 14.07.2015, the appointed counsel appeared and argued the appeal for the respondent. This Court having held the respondent guilty, the learned appointed counsel for the respondent was asked to argue the appeal on the question of sentence. Accordingly, she prayed for leniency while awarding the sentence. In that view of the matter, now I proceed to deal with the appeal as under. Consideration: 5. The prosecution examined number of witnesses in support of its case. The evidence of the prosecution is to the effect that PW3-Swati Sathe was working as Jailer at Akola Central Prison. In routine course, along with her staff and body guards, on 22.12.2000 at about 6.30 p.m. she was taking round in the jail to make search. While she was taking round in the jail, the respondent-accused suddenly came on her person from her backside and gave her a forcible push, as a result of which she fell on the circle gate and sustained abrasion on her both hands and her wrist watch fell down. Her two bodyguards; Ganesh and Sunil ran towards her but the accused also pushed them and scuffled with them and torn the uniforms of her bodyguards and thus obstructed public servants from discharging their duties. This was the sum and substance of the prosecution evidence. 6. Her two bodyguards; Ganesh and Sunil ran towards her but the accused also pushed them and scuffled with them and torn the uniforms of her bodyguards and thus obstructed public servants from discharging their duties. This was the sum and substance of the prosecution evidence. 6. Keeping fully in mind the parameters for interference in an appeal against acquittal namely; merely because second view is possible, the High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal, this appeal is being decided. In the present case, I find that the trial Judge has given fancy reasons for acquitting the respondent, which are not at all based on the evidence. To say the least, the judgment is perverse and in order to remove miscarriage of justice to the State, the same must be set aside. 7. Here, it is necessary evaluate evidence of the prosecution witnesses. First comes the evidence of PW1-Ganesh. He stated thus in his evidence: ".....We had completed search of accused except 7 to 8 accused out of 450 accused. In aforesaid 7 to 8 accused present accused was also present who were remaining for search. Accused directly had come on person of jailor Swati Sathe therefore all other employees of staff rushed towards jailor and accused. Accused gave dash to jailor from behind her he pushed to jailor. Due to dash jailor Swati Sathe had fallen on ground on right side gate. She had received silent injury on her right hand. I was present on side of jailor with Sunil Bakal. Sunil Bakal had scuffled with accused. I had also scuffled with accused therefore packet of my shirt on left side was torn. My shirt of uniform and shirt of uniform of Sunil Bakal was also torn. Pocket of shirt of uniform of Sunil on left side was torn and button were also broken. We had tried to caught hold accused but he could not sustained mean time Maroti Rokade and officer Shri Bhise, Daberao had come there. We all caught hold accused. Accused was having accused no. 2832 and he was in barrack no.6. Accused did not give his seizure. Thereafter we had gone at P.S. for lodging report. Complainant has lodged report against accused. Report is shown to me. It bears signature of jailor Swati Sathe. I know her signature. It is at Exh.7." 8. PW3-Swati Sathe, stated thus in her evidence: "1. 2832 and he was in barrack no.6. Accused did not give his seizure. Thereafter we had gone at P.S. for lodging report. Complainant has lodged report against accused. Report is shown to me. It bears signature of jailor Swati Sathe. I know her signature. It is at Exh.7." 8. PW3-Swati Sathe, stated thus in her evidence: "1. Incident had occurred on 22.12.2000. At that time I was Jail Superintendent at Akola Jail. I know accused. Incident took place at about 6.25 p.m. on 22.12.2000. I was on duty. At the time of incident I was taking search of accused and other persons who were in custody. In aforesaid prisoners accused was also present. During search of prisoners when 8 to 10 prisoners were remained for search I turned my face towards circle office by giving instructions to subordinate for taking proper search of remaining prisoners. Meanwhile accused came on my person behind me and gave push to me therefore I fell on gate on circle gate. I had sustained abrasion on both hands and wrist watch of my left hand fell down on ground. My two body guards Ganesh Gawai and Sunil Bakal rushed towards me by running but accused had also pushed them and scuffled with them. Accused had torn the uniform of my both body guards. Therefore Jailor Bhise and Jailor Dabeao, Jail Guard Ambore, Jail Guard Rokade came running towards us and caught hold of accused and had taken him in barrack no.6. Accused was uncontrolled at that time therefore officials had taken mild behavour and caught hold accused. If he was not control at all that time then would cause more injury to me. At the time of incident accused was undertrial prisoner of barrack no.6. Due to aforesaid act, work of search of prisoners was not completed. Accused made obstruction to take search of other prisoners. Accused had obstructed me to discharge my public duty being a public servant. I lodged report at P.S. City Kotwali. Report Exh.7 is shown to me. It bears my signature. Contents are true and correct." 9. PW4-Dilip stated thus in his evidence: "I know accused and complainant both. At the time of incident I was Jailer in Akola Jail. Incident had occurred on 22.12.2000. At about 6.30 p.m. Jail Superintendent complainant had come in Circle for taking search of Prisoners. Report Exh.7 is shown to me. It bears my signature. Contents are true and correct." 9. PW4-Dilip stated thus in his evidence: "I know accused and complainant both. At the time of incident I was Jailer in Akola Jail. Incident had occurred on 22.12.2000. At about 6.30 p.m. Jail Superintendent complainant had come in Circle for taking search of Prisoners. After taking search of Prisoners, Prisoners were going to their barrack. At that time, only 10 to 15 prisoners were remained for search. Jail Supdt. Complainant was standing on the Jail. Jailer and guards were standing behind Prisoners. Accused was present in aforesaid prisoners. At the time of going to barrack, accused came running on person of complainant therefore, complainant failed down on gate. Complainant had received injury on her back and hand. Guards Ganesh Gawai and Sunil Bakal run towards complainant who were present behind the Prisoners. On scuffling shirts of Guards were torned. Scuffle took place between Guards and accused. Button of Shirt of Uniform were broken in a scuffling. Prisoners were sent to their Barrack. Complt. Had sent to Ganesh Gavai Guard for lodging report. B. K. Bhise Jailer, Dadarao Lande, Maroti Rokde and Kisan Ambhore Guards were present at the spot. We all persons had tried to separate accused and Gaurds from each other." 10. PW5-Sunil in his evidence deposed as under: "I know accused and complainant both. Incident had occurred on 22.12.2000. At the time of incident I was on duty as a Jailor Guard. Incident took place about 6.50 p.m. in Jail Guard. Incident took place at about 6.50 p.m. in jail premises. At the relevant time of incident complainant Jail Supdt. Swati Sathe was taking search of prisoners. During search accused went o person of complainant behind her back and gave dash to her therefore complainant was fell down on gate. Complainant had received injury in her hand. Myself and my colleague guard Ganesh Gawai run towards accused and caught hold him. Scuffling was going in between us. In aforesaid incident left pocket of shirt of my uniform was torn and buttons were broken. Left pocket of shirt of uniform of Gawai was also torn and buttons were broken. On seeing aforesaid incident, Jailro Bhise and Jailor Daberao Guard Maroti and Ramrao Ambore had come towards us by running. Scuffling was going in between us. In aforesaid incident left pocket of shirt of my uniform was torn and buttons were broken. Left pocket of shirt of uniform of Gawai was also torn and buttons were broken. On seeing aforesaid incident, Jailro Bhise and Jailor Daberao Guard Maroti and Ramrao Ambore had come towards us by running. We all of us caught hold accused and had cocked in other prisoners in barrack no.6 along with accused." 11. I have carefully perused the cross-examination of these witnesses and the reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge. At the outset, I must say that the learned trial Judge has not at all considered the evidence of these witnesses. The learned trial Judge has dealt with the evidence in the most crude manner, which does not find place anywhere under Criminal Jurisprudence. For example, the learned trial Judge has not accepted the evidence of PW3-Swati Sathe with the reason that she failed to produce extract of duty register to show whether she was really on duty on that date. If the reasons given by the learned Judge in the judgment are seen, one is bound to get aback. I would quote some of the relevant portions from the judgment of the trial Judge to show what types of reasons have been given. "13. .....The entire prosecution story created whirlpool in the present case that it is P.W.3 who was attached by the accused suddenly on the crime scene. As a matter of fact when the jailor takes search of inmates in the jail normally the position of the jailor is facing towards the inmates and inmates are facing towards jailor. Then question will arise in the present case that other inmates including the accused were also standing before her when without turning back how the accused suddenly appeared on the crime scene and gave dash to her from her back side because in this aspect there is no whisper about this material fact in the statement recorded by cops in respect of P.W.3 dated 23.12.2000 at Exh.15 admits in cross-examination. 14. ... 15. ...The testimony of P.W.8 at Exh.31, who is investigating officer in the present case also appears to be contradictory because to show that he was on duty, the extract of station diary is not filled in the present case... 14. ... 15. ...The testimony of P.W.8 at Exh.31, who is investigating officer in the present case also appears to be contradictory because to show that he was on duty, the extract of station diary is not filled in the present case... ...It is also not stated by P.W.1 in this statement recorded by the cops dated 24.12.2000 that when the accused rushed on the person of complainant meanwhile staff members rushed towards the accused P.W.8 at Exh.31 admits in cross-examination. It is also not stated by P.W. 1 in his statement recorded by the cops dated 24.12.2000 that accused gave dash and complainant fallen down and sustained injury to her right hand.... 16. It is also important to note that as per the say of P.W.3 when accused pushed her from back side she lost her watch. As a matter of fact the said watch was not seized in the present case P.W.8 at Exh.31 admits in cross-examination." 12. The above reasons given by the learned trial Judge are not only ridiculous, faulty and perverse but show a casual approach on the part of the learned trial Judge in dealing with such a serious case. The injury report in respect of the injuries sustained by PW3-Swati Sathe and others are as under: "P.W.7 examined P.W.3 at 08.15 p.m. and found following injuries. (1) Contusion on both wrists joint size 1 inch x 1 inch with tenderness: (2) contusion on right side back on right capular region side 2 inch x 2 inch irregular in shape: (3) Laceration on right knee joint age of afore said injuries within two to 3 hours caused by hard and blunt object. Healing time within 6 to 7 days if no complications happened and treatment is continued. Thereafter, again he clinically examined P.W.5 at 08.25 p.m. and noticed following injuries on his person. (1) Laceration with contusion on right forearm below right elbow joint anterirarely size 1½ inch x 1½ inch with tenderness: (2) Contusion on left side of chest below left clavicle 2 inch x 2 inch with tenderness; On the same day at 08.30 p.m. P.W. 7 also clinically examined P.W. 1 and noticed following injuries on his person: (1) contusion above right wrist joints size 1½ inch x 1 inch with tenderness. (2) contusion on right ring finger with tenderness; (3) contusion on left right finger and little ringer with tenderness. (2) contusion on right ring finger with tenderness; (3) contusion on left right finger and little ringer with tenderness. (4) contusion on left clavicle 1½ inch x ½ laterally." It is, thus, clear from the above injury report that PW3-Swati Sathe and her staff suffered injuries due to the rowdy behaviour of the respondent and still the learned trial Judge recorded an order of acquittal. The above extracted evidence of these witnesses is not at all shaken in the cross-examination and their evidence is consistent, trustworthy and fully corroborated. 13. To conclude, the respondent-accused must be held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 of the IPC which I accordingly do. Now, the respondent sole will have to be heard through his Advocate on the question of sentence. Hence, place the matter on 04.08.2015 at 2.30 p.m. On 04.08.2015 at 2.30 Pm 14. On the point of sentence, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that leniency should be shown to the respondent. She has further argued that the respondent has already undergone imprisonment from 23.07.2001 to 26.07.2002 and that his age is now 55 years. However, I find that the respondent-accused not only attacked the Jailer, who is a woman, but also scuffled with her bodyguards, torn their clothes and continued to fight with them when all of them were discharging their duties of making search in Jail. There is nothing on record to show due to what reasons the respondent had indulged in the violence. Perhaps, the respondent must be afraid of the search, that was being conducted and could be caught with some incriminating articles. 15. Be that as it may. Looking to the nature of attack made by him on the Jailer and the staff, the respondent cannot be shown leniency. I think, maximum punishment provided by Sections 353 and 332 of the IPC must be imposed. 16. In the result, I make the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal No.593/2002 is allowed. (ii) Impugned judgment and order of acquittal of respondent-Ajay Raghuram Galat dated 26.07.2002 in Regular Criminal Case No.812/2001 passed by 4th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola is set aside. (iii) Respondent-Ajay Raghuram Galat is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. (iii) Respondent-Ajay Raghuram Galat is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for one year. (iv) Respondent-Ajay Raghuram Galat is also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for one and half year. (v) Both the sentences shall run consecutively. (vi) Benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. is granted to the respondent-accused. (vii) The respondent-Ajay Galat shall be arrested and put in jail for serving out the remaining sentence. (viii) Professional charges of Mrs. Chobe, Advocate appointed for the respondent are quantified at Rs. 3,000/-. Appeal allowed.