JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants were tried and acquitted by the Magistrate in respect of a charge under S. 332, I. P. C. On appeal by the State, the High Court set aside their acquittal and convicted and sentenced them under S. 332, I. P. C. to three month rigorous imprisonment each.

( 2 ) THEY have come to this Court by special leave granted under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

( 3 ) AT the material time, the complainant Shaikh Masthan was a Typist of the Panchayat Samiti, Ipur. In the same office, appellants 1 and 2 and the accused, Guravareddy, were working as Health Inspector, Lower Division Clerk and Health Worker, respectively, attached to the Primary Health Centre, Ipur.

( 4 ) THE charge on which the accused were tried ran as follows:-"that you, on or about the 29th day of Nov. 1968 in the Panchayat Samiti Office at Ipur, caused hurt to Typist, Shaikh Masthan of the same office, which in discharge of his duties as such public servant with intent to deter him from discharging duties and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 332 Indian Penal Code. . . . . "

( 5 ) IT will be seen that substantially, the charge as framed, was under the second part of S. 332 I. P. C. of which the intent to prevent or deter public servant from discharging his duties as such public servant is an essential ingredient.

( 6 ) COUNSEL for the appellants has taken us through the records including the copies of the statements of material witnesses. It is urged by him that no case under S. 332 I. P. C. was made out against the appellants. In this connection, he has drawn out attention to the F. I. R. which, according to him, does not contain any allegation that the assault on the informant was with intent to prevent or deter him from performing his duty as public servant, or that it was the consequence of or related to anything done by him in the discharge of his official duty. We find force in this contention.

( 7 ) IN the F. I. R. it has not been alleged that the incident was the out come of anything connected with the performance of the complainants duty as public servant. There is not even an obliquitous allegation suggesting that he was assaulted with intent to prevent or deter him from doing his official duty. All that was alleged by him in the F. I. R. (Ex. P. 5), was that while he was attending to despatch work in the office on 29-11-68 afternoon, the three accused (who work in the same office) approached and questioned him as to why he had abused them. On the informants denial of the accusation, they beat him. In so assaulting the informant Nannapu Reddy used a stick and scissors.

( 8 ) IN his evidence at the trial, the complainant (Prosecution witness 1) disclosed other facts which put it beyond doubt that the incident was the sequel of a private quarrel which took place between he complainant and the accused on the preceding day when the complainant was returning home from Samithi office, and was abused by the accused. In regard to the occurrence, the complainants version at the trial was that while he was at his work at about 1. 00 P. M. , appellant 1 came, demanded an explanation why he was carrying on propaganda against family planning and abusing him. The complainant denied. There upon, A-1 slapped him and then A-2 hit him with a ruler and A-3 with a stick. The complainant caught hold of the stick. A-3 then picked up a pair of scissors from the complainants table and hit him below left eye.

( 9 ) IT was thus manifest that the assault on the Typist (Prosecution witness 1) had no real nexus or causal connection, or consequential relation with the performance of his duty as public servant. There was not even a scintilla of evidence from which it could be reasonably inferred that the intent of the assailants was to prevent or deter Prosecution witness 1 from the discharge of his duty as such public servant.

( 10 ) IN view of the above, the charge as laid under S. 332 I. P. C. and the conviction of the appellant on that co