JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Since all the appeals arise from the same judgment and common questions of law and facts are involved, all the appeals were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The accused were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karsog District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Police Challan No. 36-11-2010 instituted on 20.3.2010 under Sections 353, 332, 147, 149, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and sentenced the accused in the following manner: u/s 147 r/w 149 IPC rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. u/s 353 r/w 149 IPC rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. u/s 332 r/w 149 IPC rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month u/s 506 r/w 149 IPC rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month u/s 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act r/w 149 IPC simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 3. All the accused filed separate appeals before the first appellate Court against their conviction. Vide judgment dated 12.2.2015, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi (camp at Karsog) allowed Cr. Appeals No. 64, 65, 66, 68, 69 and 70 of 2012 and acquitted the accused. Cr. Appeal No. 67/2012 preferred by accused Mahinder Lal and Kamla Devi was partly allowed. Accused Mahinder Lal was acquitted of all the charged sections. Accused Kamla Devi was also acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 332, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. However, she was convicted under Section 353 IPC. Her sentenced was modified and she was convicted and sentenced to pay Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 353 IPC. Accused Kamla Devi was also acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 332, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. However, she was convicted under Section 353 IPC. Her sentenced was modified and she was convicted and sentenced to pay Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 353 IPC. It is in these circumstances that the State has come in appeal against the acquittal of the accused and accused Kamla Devi has come against her conviction under Section 353 IPC in Cr. Appeal No. 169/2015. 4. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that complainant P.S. Verma (PW-1) was posted as DFO Karsog in the month of July, 2009. On 14.7.2009, he inspected the beat of forest guard Tej Ram (accused) and found that construction of road was going on illegally. Tej Ram was placed under suspension. On 21.7.2009, at about 11.30 AM, when complainant was present in his office at Karsog, accused Tej Ram along with other accused persons came outside the office of complainant and started shouting slogans. Thereafter accused came inside the office of the complainant and asked the complainant as to why he had suspended Tej Ram. Thereafter, accused also abused the complainant and damaged the public property. Accused also threatened the complainant. Thereafter, Kamla Devi came inside the office and caught hold of the complainant from neck. Accused dragged the complainant outside the office and threatened to do away with his life. Police came on the spot. accused started raising slogans. An application was given by the complainant to the SHO Karsog, on the basis of which FIR was registered vide Ext. PW-18/1. Spot map was prepared vide Ext. PW-16/B. Photographs were also taken. Medical examination of the complainant was undertaken vide Ext. PW-16/A. MLC is mark PS. Suspension orders of Tej Ram were obtained. Investigation was completed. Challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 5. Prosecution has examined as many as twenty witnesses to prove its case against accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. Their case was denial simpliciter. Accused were convicted by the learned trial Court as noticed herein above. The first appellate Court acquitted all the accused except Kamla Devi. Hence, the appeals by the State against acquittal and one appeal by Kamla Devi against her conviction. 6. Mr. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. Their case was denial simpliciter. Accused were convicted by the learned trial Court as noticed herein above. The first appellate Court acquitted all the accused except Kamla Devi. Hence, the appeals by the State against acquittal and one appeal by Kamla Devi against her conviction. 6. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. He has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. 7. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents in Cr. Appeals No. 427 to 433 of 2015 have supported the judgment of the first appellate Court. 8. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned Senior Advocate has also argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against her client under Section 353 IPC. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 10. Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) testified that he was posted as DFO Karsog for the period from 17.3.2009 to 9.9.2009. He inspected Mahu Nag beat of forest guard Tej Ram on 14.7.2009. He noticed illegal construction going on in the DPF. Tej Ram was present there. Hira Lal, Range Officer Karsog, BO Bagshad Shri Netter Singh and Chet Ram, Guard, Parlog Beat were present with him. He immediately stopped the work. Explanation of Tej Ram was called. He was placed under suspension on 15.7.2009. On 21.7.2009, he was present in his office at Karsog. At around 11.30 AM, about 35-40 persons gathered in front of his office. They made speeches and raised slogans against him. They raised slogans of ‘Murdabad’. Accused sent a chit of NGO, to meet him in the office room. Around 30-35 persons entered his room. 5-6 persons, who were identified as Chuni Lal, Natha Singh Guleria, Tej Ram, Forest Guard, Harware Lal, Tara Chand and Mahinder along with Kamla Devi. He recognized all these persons. Initially, Natha Singh Guleria and Chuni Lal asked him why he had suspended Tej Ram. He told that Tej Ram had been suspended under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Accused told him that he should not have suspended Tej Ram. Remaining persons became furious and started advancing threats to him. Accused persons hit his head with files lying on the table. Thereafter, he was hit with detachable table. Table and glass had broken. He told that Tej Ram had been suspended under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Accused told him that he should not have suspended Tej Ram. Remaining persons became furious and started advancing threats to him. Accused persons hit his head with files lying on the table. Thereafter, he was hit with detachable table. Table and glass had broken. Thereafter accused called Kamla Devi and asked her to drag him out and to take him out with the intention to move him around the market after blackening his face. Kamla Devi caught him from his collar. She dragged him from the room up to the door. In the meantime, three lady employees, namely Geeta Sharma, Kusum and Meera appeared on the spot. He moved an application Ext. PW-1/A. Matter was investigated. He identified his signatures on Ext. PW-1/A. He was discharging his official duties when the incident took place. Accused persons asked him to reinstate the accused Tej Ram otherwise he would be eliminated. They proclaimed “Teri Laash Bichha Denge”. The language used by accused was very abusive. He admitted in his cross-examination that the BO and Range Officer were equally responsible for the illegal acts. 4 kms of road had been constructed when he visited the spot and half a kilometer of road was under construction. He also admitted that there were veterinary dispensary and BDO office in front of his office. Names of other accused were told to him by the staff as mentioned in FIR. Volunteered that he got identified these persons to the police by putting fingers on them on the spot. At the time of incident, Dharam Dev and Budhi Singh were present. 11. Tarun Kumar (PW-2) has testified that he was sitting outside the office of DFO at 11.30 AM. 40-50 persons reached the spot. He went inside the office of DFO. Naresh Kumar came with a chit of some NGO, on which DFO called them inside. Members of the NGO entered the office of DFO. According to him, one lady has caught hold of DFO from his collar. Police was present on the spot. He identified accused in the Court. When he entered inside the office later, glass of the table was found broken. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Members of the NGO entered the office of DFO. According to him, one lady has caught hold of DFO from his collar. Police was present on the spot. He identified accused in the Court. When he entered inside the office later, glass of the table was found broken. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, he admitted that some of the persons along with accused were telling the DFO why he had suspended Tej Ram. He also admitted that voice of breaking of table was audible outside the hall. He admitted that when the DFO was brought out, accused were not with him. He came to know about the names of accused persons later. He also admitted that Geeta and Meera and other staff saved the DFO from the accused Kamla Devi. He also admitted that accused abused the DFO. 12. Naresh Kumar, Peon (PW-3) testified that on 21.7.2009, at around 10.30 AM, members of NGO came and gave a chit to DFO. They were 40-50 persons. He heard noise from the office of DFO. He saw that a lady had caught hold of DFO from his collar and was dragging him out of the room. 13. Geeta Sharma (PW-4) testified that she was on duty on 21.7.2009. Forest Guard Tej Ram entered the room and asked them to stop the work. Several persons had gathered in the courtyard of the office. Speech was made by the persons who had reached the spot. After 5-10 minutes, she heard commotion coming from the room of DFO. She along with Kusum and Meera went inside the room. They saw that one lady had caught hold of DFO from his collar. She and Meera saved DFO from the lady. Police was present. She identified the lady who caught DFO from his collar in the court as Kamla. She was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. In her cross-examination, by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, she admitted that she had seen Chuni Lal, Guleria and Harware Singh making speech. She admitted that slogans were raised against DFO. She admitted that on the lower level persons were saying that DFO would be moved around after blackening his face. She also admitted that Padam Nabh and Sant Ram were present on the spot. She admitted that slogans were raised against DFO. She admitted that on the lower level persons were saying that DFO would be moved around after blackening his face. She also admitted that Padam Nabh and Sant Ram were present on the spot. She also admitted that Budhi Singh and Dharam Dev were present in the room of DFO. When she saved DFO from the clutches of Kamla, at that time, Padam Nabh and Meera were with her. 14. Budhi Singh (PW-5) deposed that at 12 PM, he was present in his room. Thereafter, he went inside the room of DFO. There were about 100-150 persons in the courtyard. They were making speeches. NGO sent a chit to DFO. He recognized the accused Tej Ram. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, he admitted that the members of the NGO who came inside were talking about the suspension of Tej Ram. He denied that Geeta Devi had dragged DFO outside his room. He admitted about preparation of spot map by the police. In his cross-examination by the learned defence Counsel, he admitted that when table had fallen, 8-10 files had fallen from the table. 15. Tej Ram (PW-6) deposed that on 21.7.2009 (sic 21.8.2009), he was on leave. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor but he has identified his signatures on Ext. PW-6/A. 16. Dharam Dev (PW-7) has identified his signatures on Ext. PW-6/A. Necessary entry was made at page No. 13 in the day book pertaining to the table and glass. He admitted that construction work of Mahu Nag road was visible from the DFO office. 17. ASI Bhup Singh (PW-8) deposed that he received a telephonic information that members of NGO had gathered in the courtyard of DFO. He along with ASI Tilak singh, HC Jagdish Chand and HHC Jiwan Lal went to the spot. He saw that a lady had caught hold of DFO outside the room of DFO. He identified her as Kamla Devi. Members of NGO were raising slogans against DFO Partap Singh. Members of NGO were instigating Kamla Devi to give more beatings to the DFO. DFO was saved by women staff. One side of table was broken. Persons in the court were threatening and abusing DFO Partap Singh. He identified her as Kamla Devi. Members of NGO were raising slogans against DFO Partap Singh. Members of NGO were instigating Kamla Devi to give more beatings to the DFO. DFO was saved by women staff. One side of table was broken. Persons in the court were threatening and abusing DFO Partap Singh. They were saying “saale ko aur maaro’ and were hurling filthy abuses. According to him, had the police not visited the spot, serious offence would have taken place. He recognized Natha Singh and remaining accused in the Court. 18. Sant Ram Sharma (PW-9) testified that on 21.7.2009, he was present in the office. At 11 AM, 50-60 persons gathered outside the office. They were making speeches. Partap Singh was the DFO at the relevant time. These persons entered the room of DFO. He heard some noise from the office of DFO. Thereafter, Senior Assistant, Padam Nabh came to him and women employees namely Geeta, Meera and Kusum Lata also came. A lady was being instigated to enter the room of DFO. She went inside the room of DFO. He saw the woman caught hold of DFO from his collar and dragged him out. He identified the woman. DFO had earlier suspended Tej Ram. DFO was saved by Geeta, Meera and the police. Glass on the table top was broken. 19. Kusum Lata (PW-10) deposed that she was present in her office at 11.30 AM. Many persons assembled outside the office. Noise was heard from the room of DFO. Geeta told her that come outside or the people will kill the DFO. A woman had caught hold of DFO from his collar. DFO was rescued by Geeta from the clutches of woman accused. 20. Dr. K.K. Chauhan (PW-11) proved Exts. PW-11/A and PW-11/B qua casual leave of Natha singh Guleria. 21. Vipin Kumar (PW-12) proved the leave of Bodh Raj, Superintendent Grade II on 21.7.2009. 22. Manohar Lal (PW-13) is the witness of application for leave of Harware and Saran Dass. Original applications are Exts. PW-13/A and PW-13/B. 23. Subhash Gupta (PW-14) deposed that accused Tara Chand was on leave. He has brought attendance register. He identified his signatures on Ext. PW-14/A. He admitted that there was no application lying in the office for 21.7.2009. 24. Gauri Shankar (PW-15) testified that Nirmal Kumar was clerk and BR Verma was Senior Assistant. Original applications are Exts. PW-13/A and PW-13/B. 23. Subhash Gupta (PW-14) deposed that accused Tara Chand was on leave. He has brought attendance register. He identified his signatures on Ext. PW-14/A. He admitted that there was no application lying in the office for 21.7.2009. 24. Gauri Shankar (PW-15) testified that Nirmal Kumar was clerk and BR Verma was Senior Assistant. He signed application for leave dated 21.7.2009 vide Ext. PW-20/A and Ext. PW-20/B. He also admitted that there was short leave of Balak Ram till 12.30 PM for 21.7.2009. However, BR Verma was present in the office. 25. Duma Ram, Senior Assistant (PW-17) has proved leave applications of Megh Singh and Chuni Lal on 21.7.2009, vide Exts. PW-17/A and PW-17/B, respectively. 26. Matter was investigated by Tilak Singh ASI (PW-18). He reached the spot at 12.30 PM. DFO was encircled by 40-50 persons. Kamla Devi had caught the DFO from his collar and many accused were abusing DFO. He provided security to the DFO and rescued DFO with the help of two women employees of the DFO office. 27. Paras Ram (PW-19) has proved the leave of Harware and Saran Dass vide Exts. PW-19/A and PW-19/B. He admitted that Exts. PW-19/A and PW-19/B were not written in his presence. 28. Suresh Kumar (PW-20) proved Ext. PW-20/A and Ext. PW-20/B. 29. Case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that PW-1 Partap Singh Verma has visited the spot on 14.7.2009. He noticed that the road was constructed through DPF unauthorisedly and Tej Ram was the forest guard there. He was present on the spot. He was placed under suspension on 21.7.2009. Tej Ram along with other co-accused went to the office of DFO. Speeches were made in the courtyard. Thereafter, they entered the room of DFO. He was abused and threatened. Public property was destroyed. Kamla Devi dragged the DFO. He was saved by the employees of the office. All the accused were duly identified by the witnesses. Accused were pressuring PW-1 Partap Singh Verma to reinstate Tej Ram. PW-1 was also medically examined. The MLC is mark PS. 30. PW-1 Partap Singh Verma, in his statement has categorically deposed that he visited the spot on 14.7.2009. Tej Ram was placed under suspension on 15.7.2009. Accused had entered the room and raised slogans of ‘Murdabad’ against him. Accused were pressuring PW-1 Partap Singh Verma to reinstate Tej Ram. PW-1 was also medically examined. The MLC is mark PS. 30. PW-1 Partap Singh Verma, in his statement has categorically deposed that he visited the spot on 14.7.2009. Tej Ram was placed under suspension on 15.7.2009. Accused had entered the room and raised slogans of ‘Murdabad’ against him. He was asked by the accused persons namely Chuni Lal, Natha Singh Guleria, Tej Ram, Forest Guard, Harware Lal, Tara Chand and Mahinder along with Kamla Devi, as to why he had placed Tej Ram under suspension. He told them that Tej Ram was placed under suspension under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Kamla Devi has also entered the room and caught hold him from his collar and dragged him from his office. In his cross-examination, he admitted that 4 kms of road was already constructed and remaining half a kilometers of road was under construction. Accused persons had no business to construct the road through the DPF without seeking permission under the Forest Conservation Act. Their act of construction of road was illegal. Statement of Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) has been duly corroborated by PW-2 Tarun Kumar, PW-3 Naresh Kumar. According to PW-2 Tarun Kumar, lady had caught DFO from his collar. He also admitted that commotion was audible outside the room. Similarly PW-3 Naresh Kumar deposed that one lady Kamla Devi had caught DFO from his collar and was dragging him. He knew accused Tej Ram, Chuni Lal and Mahinder Singh. However, he forgot the names of remaining accused. PW-4 Geeta is a material witness. He has saved Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) from Kamla Devi. Though she was declared hostile but, in her cross-examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, she admitted that she has seen Chuni Lal and Guleria were giving speeches on the spot. She also admitted that Dharam Dev and Budhi Singh were also present in the room of DFO. PW-5 Budhi Singh though declared hostile, has admitted that about 100-150 persons had assembled. He knew accused Tej Ram. PW-8 ASI Bhup Singh has deposed that he visited the spot. Members of NGO were instigating one lady to give more beatings to the DFO. DFO was saved by women employees. Accused were threatening and abusing DFO and were saying that ‘saale ko aur maaro’. They were hurling filthy abuses. He knew accused Tej Ram. PW-8 ASI Bhup Singh has deposed that he visited the spot. Members of NGO were instigating one lady to give more beatings to the DFO. DFO was saved by women employees. Accused were threatening and abusing DFO and were saying that ‘saale ko aur maaro’. They were hurling filthy abuses. He recognized Natha Singh Guleria and remaining accused by face. PW-9 Sant Ram Sharma has also admitted that he was present in the office at 11 AM. He admitted that some persons had entered the office room of DFO. He heard noise from the office of DFO. One woman was being instigated to go into the room of DFO. They later on entered the room of DFO. He saw the woman who had caught DFO from his collar and was dragging him out. He identified her as Kamla Devi. He deposed that DFO was saved by Geeta, Meera and Police. PW-10 Kusum Lata is material witness. She heard noise from the room of DFO. A lady had caught hold of DFO from his collar. She has seen the accused going towards the courtyard of DFO. DFO was rescued by Geeta. 31. Learned advocates appearing for the accused have vehemently argued that the Natha Singh Guleria, Bodh Raj, Harware, Saran Dass, Nirmal, Balak Ram, Tara Chand, Megh Singh and Chuni Lal were on leave. These documents have been obtained by them later on. It is difficult to believe that all the accused were on leave on 21.7.2009. Fact of the matter is that all the accused were present on the spot. They entered the room of the DFO and have hurled abuses and used force against him. He was intimidated to reinstate the accused Tej Ram. Learned Advocates appearing for the accused have also argued that the official witnesses could not be relied upon. According to them, office of BDO and veterinary dispensary were situate near the office of DFO. Only material witnesses could be associated from the office of DFO where the incident has taken place on 21.7.2009. Statements of the official witnesses inspire confidence. Accused have entered the room of Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) by forming unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object. Force was used by unlawful assembly against Partap Singh Verma (PW-1). Accused were asking Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) why he had placed Tej Ram under suspension. Statements of the official witnesses inspire confidence. Accused have entered the room of Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) by forming unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object. Force was used by unlawful assembly against Partap Singh Verma (PW-1). Accused were asking Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) why he had placed Tej Ram under suspension. Kamla Devi caught Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) from his collar and has dragged him out. All the accused have instigated Kamla Devi to beat and intimidate Partap Singh Verma (PW-1). Accused have hit Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) with files and have also banged table on his head. This fact has been corroborated by PW-2 Tarun Kumar, PW-8 Bhup Singh and PW-9 Sant Ram Sharma. Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) was discharging official duties on 21.7.2009. Partap Singh Verma (PW-1), Tarun Kumar (PW-2), Naresh Kumar (PW-3) and Geeta Sharma (PW-4) have categorically deposed that the accused have used criminal force to get Tej Ram reinstated. They have used criminal force by hitting table and files on the head of Partap Singh Verma (PW-1). DFO was caught from his collar by Kamla Devi. Accused persons have thus rightly been held guilty under Section 147 read with section 149 IPC. They have used criminal force against the complainant. Accused have voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant being a public servant. Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) was medically examined. Accused have tried to prevent the complainant from discharging his duties as a public servant in prosecution of common object and have formed unlawful assembly. 32. Accused have intentionally intimidated PW-1. Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) has categorically deposed that accused Kamla Devi said ‘isse pakad kar, kala muh kar ke sare bazaar me ghumayenge. Statement of PW-1 has duly been corroborated by PW-4 Geeta. She has admitted that accused persons were saying that “DFO ka kala muh karke ghumayenge’. Accused were also saying “Saale ko aur maaro”. Accused have criminally intimidated Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) by advancing threats to him. He was assaulted and criminal force was used against him. 33. Evidence of hostile witnesses can be relied upon at least till the stage they support the prosecution case. PW-2 Tarun Kumar has identified the accused. PW-4 Geeta Sharma has also recognized the accused. Contradiction pointed out by the learned advocates for the accused are only minor in nature. 34. Ms. 33. Evidence of hostile witnesses can be relied upon at least till the stage they support the prosecution case. PW-2 Tarun Kumar has identified the accused. PW-4 Geeta Sharma has also recognized the accused. Contradiction pointed out by the learned advocates for the accused are only minor in nature. 34. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the name of her client was not mentioned in the FIR. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supdt. of Police vs. Tapan Kr. Singh reported in (2003) 6 SCC 175 , have held as under: “20. It is well settled that a First Information Report is not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence took place. A first informant need not necessarily be an eye witness so as to be able to disclose in great details all aspects of the offence committed. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of information received, that a cognizable offence may have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an investigation. At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of the information. It is only after a complete investigation that he may be able to report on the truthfulness or otherwise of the information. Similarly, even if the information does not furnish all the details, he must find out those details in the course of investigation and collect all the necessary evidence. The information given disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence only sets in motion the investigative machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. The information given disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence only sets in motion the investigative machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. The true test is whether the information furnished provides a reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which the concerned police officer is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate. If it does, he has no option but to record the information and proceed to investigate the case either himself or depute any other competent officer to conduct the investigation. The question as to whether the report is true, whether it discloses full details regarding the manner of occurrence, whether the accused is named, and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the allegations are all matters which are alien to the consideration of the question whether the report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Even if the information does not give full details regarding these matters, the investigating officer is not absolved of his duty to investigate the case and discover the true facts, if he can.” 35. All the accused were duly identified by Partap Singh Verma (PW-1). Thus, there was no need for holding identification parade. Rather the learned defence Counsel have not disputed the presence of their clients at the spot seriously. Damage has been caused to the public property as per the statement of Partap Singh Verma (PW-1). PW-5 Budhi Singh has also admitted that the police took into possession glass and table Ext. P1 and broken pieces Ext. P2. According to PW-8 ASI Bhup Singh, table was also broken. Sant Ram Sharma PW-9 has also deposed that glass of table was broken. 36. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has misread the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary, while reversing the judgment of the learned trial Court by acquitting the accused except Kamla Devi. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to a wrong conclusion that prosecution witnesses have not identified the accused. There is plethora of evidence that accused were duly identified by the witnesses. No identification parade was required since accused were duly identified by Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) and other witnesses. All the accused have shared common object of unlawful assembly by going to the spot and using force against Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) and intimidating him also. There is plethora of evidence that accused were duly identified by the witnesses. No identification parade was required since accused were duly identified by Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) and other witnesses. All the accused have shared common object of unlawful assembly by going to the spot and using force against Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) and intimidating him also. There is no possibility of accused being falsely implicated. Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) has no animosity against the accused. Accused have prevented Partap Singh Verma (PW-1) from discharging his official duties by dragging him and raising slogans. They intimidated him by using force. He was hurt while discharging official duties. He was medically examined. MLC is mark PS. Kamla Devi in particular has caused hurt to the complainant by holding him from his collar and dragging him out of his room. 37. Thus, the prosecution has duly proved its case against the accused under all the sections charged. 38. Accordingly, Cr. Appeals No. 427/2015, 428/2015, 429/2015, 430/2015, 431/2015, 432/2015 and 433/2015 are allowed. Judgment dated 12.2.2015, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi (camp at Karsog) is set aside. Judgment dated 22.11.2012 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karsog District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Police Challan No. 36-11-2010, is upheld. Cr. Appeal No. 169/2015 is dismissed. 39. All the accused are directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karsog District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, to serve the sentences imposed upon them, within a period of 15 days from today.