JUDGMENT : Mr. G.R. Moolchandani, J. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21.9.1991 passed by Judge, Special Court (SC/ST) Prevention of Atrocities Act, A.D.J., Bikaner in Criminal Case No.33/1990 convicting the appellant under Section 333 and 353 I.P.C. 2. The law was put to motion on FIR lodged on 13.4.1983 by complainant Kishan Lal, the Regional Forest Officer against the appellant Manjoor with allegation of criminal assault causing injuries during the course of anti encroachment proceedings and this FIR was lodged under Sections 332, 353 and 307 I.P.C. 3. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant accused person under Sections 307, 333, 353 and the case was committed to Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge subsequently vide order dated 4.10.1983 discharged the accused under Section 307 Cr.P.C. and sent back the matter under Section 228 Cr.P.C. to the CJM, who further remitted it back on 13.11.1987 because Section 333 was there and the accused was not discharged under this Section subsequently the matter was sent to the court for adjudication and charge under Sections 333 and 353 were framed against the accused persons and trial was conducted. 4. The prosecution adduced 8 witnesses, i.e. PW-1 Raghunath Das, PW-2 Dr. Kishan Lal Jain, PW-3 Kishan Lal, PW-4 Dr. O.P. Khandelwal, PW-5 Sardar Singh, PW-6 Jeerudin, PW-7 Prabhu Singh and PW-8 Kalyan Singh, statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and DW-1 Mangi Khan was produced in defence witness. 5. The complainant Kishan Lal, injured Government servant has narrated the version of the incident and has said that on 13.4.1984, I was posted as a range officer in the range Bakara and in order to oust the trespasser Ajim Khan from the forest land, I went under an order to remove the encroachment accompanying police and persuaded the family members and Ajim Khan to remove possession to which they did not yield and while I was drawing sketch of spot, the forest staff along with the police men started removing of the baggage from the house, the women raised cry, Kalyan Singh and Hardwari, who were with me went to see that, meanwhile Manjoor assaulted me with wand (danda) and assaulted thrice. On raising alarm, Kalyan Singh and Hardwari came to rescue, blood started oozing from my head, my shirt got stained and during the course Manjoor fled away. On raising alarm, Kalyan Singh and Hardwari came to rescue, blood started oozing from my head, my shirt got stained and during the course Manjoor fled away. I lodged the FIR exhibit 3. He has further said that Manjoor has assaulted firstly on left side of my head. The second blow was impinged upon my right arm and third caused to fingers of my left hand. Kalyan Singh caught hold of him and protected me. I felt vertigo but was conscious. PW-8, Kalyan Singh has also narrated ocular evidence and has said that:- ^^;g jdck ou foHkkx ds dCts esa Fkk bl ij vftZr [kka us uktk;t dCtk dj j[kk FkkA bl dCts dks NqM+kus ds fy, ge ogka ij x;s FksA esjs lkFk ekrknhu jSUtj [kktqokyk vkSj nwljk gfj}kjh flag baLisDVj o fd'ku yky gekjs lkFk FkkA ogka ge tks rkjcUnh cUnh gqbZ Fkh mldks gVk jgs Fks vkSj Jh fd'ku yky th jsUtj bl laca/k esa dkxt cuk jgs FksA ogka ij eatwj ekStwnk vnkyr cSBk gqvk FkkA mlus fd'ku yky frokMh ij vVSd fd;k] vVSd ls esjk eryc eatwj us ykBh dh pksVsa fd'ku yky th ds ekjhA tks pksVsa muds flj ds mij yxhA pksVsa yxus ls muds flj esa [kwu fudykA eSa ikl esa [kM+k gqvk FkkA eSaus mldks idM+ fy;kA ogka ij dkQh yksx bDV~Bs gks x;s] ckn esa ;g eqyfte esjs NqM+kdj Hkkx x;kA fd'ku yky th ml oDr ou foHkkx dh tehu esa ls csn[kyh djus ds dkxt cuk jgs Fks] mlesa eqyfte us ck/kk MkyhA fQj ge fd'ku yky th dks ysdj Fkkus esa x;s vkSj ogka fjiksVZ ntZ djok;hA** 6. PW-5 Sardar Singh has also narrated that he was a Member of anti encroachment team and has gone under direction of S.H.O. We seen that blood was oozing from the head of Kishan Lal. On query Kishan Lal told that Manjoor has tried to kill him and has caused injuries. The PW-6 Jerudin has also narrated alike story. 7. PW-7 Prabhu Singh has narrated sequence of investigation being I.O. of the matter. PW 4 a Medical Officer Dr. O.P. Khandelwal has said that Exhibit 6 and 7 X-ray plates were taken under his supervision and these relates to Shri Kishan Lal Tiwari, I detected fractures in the right hand wrist, left hand ring finger. 8. 7. PW-7 Prabhu Singh has narrated sequence of investigation being I.O. of the matter. PW 4 a Medical Officer Dr. O.P. Khandelwal has said that Exhibit 6 and 7 X-ray plates were taken under his supervision and these relates to Shri Kishan Lal Tiwari, I detected fractures in the right hand wrist, left hand ring finger. 8. After analysing and elucidating the aforesaid evidences, the learned trial court has convicted the appellant Manjoor under Sections 333 and 353 I.P.C. and he has been sentenced as under:- For Section 333 I.P.C. 3 years r.i. And to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. For Section 353 I.P.C. To undergo 6 months' S.I. And to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's S.I. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has not committed any offence and he was not there in any illegal possession and during the course of forceful removal of articles, the accidental injury has been shown to be allegedly caused by beating which is not a truth, department failed to produce any evidence on record of title regarding the land in question alleged to be of forest department, despite attempts were made to oust the occupants. The learned counsel has further submitted that the incident belongs to 1983 and about 33 years has already elapsed to the alleged incident, appellant Manjoor has become a senior citizen by now. Learned counsel has submitted that the appellant has already incarcerated for more than two months. He has further submitted that simple injuries were caused and ends of justice will be met, if he be released and sentence is modified to already undergone. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that the appellant accused has beaten a public servant, who went to remove illegal trespass from the Government land and injuries have been caused to a Forest Officer and the act of misadventure be confronted with harsh punishment, no leniency be shown and the appeal may be rejected. 11. I have heard the contentions advanced by both the sides and examined the judgment and material available on record. 12. Appreciation and appraisal of the evidence and examination of the impugned judgment reflects that it does not suffer from any illegality. 11. I have heard the contentions advanced by both the sides and examined the judgment and material available on record. 12. Appreciation and appraisal of the evidence and examination of the impugned judgment reflects that it does not suffer from any illegality. Ocular evidence given by the injured is sell supported by the medical evidence and several police constables and other witnesses who were present at the time of the incident and gathered there, has narrated that Kishan Lal was beaten while undertaking authentic job. 13. The incident relates back to more than 3 decades old is of 13th April, 1983 about 33 years old and during this course of time injured Kishan Lal who was 60 years of age on the date of examination might have crossed the age of even senior citizen likewise the appellant too would be around the age of a senior citizen. 14. Delay of such enormous period is really shocking and purpose of law gets frustrated when the guilty persons are not subjected to resultant award within a reasonable extent of time. 15. This appeal has come for the hearing under Mission Mode Drive and this Court is hearing it during summer leisure on constitution of special Bench, so delay and expeditious justice delivery system are genuine reasons to be pondered upon. 16. On the one side, it appears that assault against Government servant should be dealt with firm hands but cause of enormous delay of more than three decades inclines to be lenient in adjudicating such issues while dispensing justice. 17. During the course of arguments, an alternative submission has also been made to allow the appeal by modifying sentence already undergone and it has been submitted that Manjoor has already remained under incarceration for a period of about 2 months and this period said to be from 18th April to 26th April and 21st September to 22nd November. 18. In view of aforesaid discussions and on cumulative appreciation of the matter, it is felt that ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant accused is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him, hence, the instant appeal is partly allowed by modifying the sentence accordingly as undergone. 19. The accused-appellant Manjoor S/o Peeru Khan need not to surrender being already enlarged on bail. 20. The appeal stands decided in aforesaid terms.