1. Heard Mr. Pavithran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed by the accused no. 2 of Sessions Case No. 35/2009 against the judgment and order dated 30.07.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I), South Goa, Margao (trial Court) in the said Sessions Case, by which the accused no. 2 has been sentenced for offence punishable under Section 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short), to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. The period during which the accused had been in custody has been set off in terms of Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C., for short).

3. In all four accused persons were tried by the trial Court for offence punishable under Sections 307, 353, 189, 506(i) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

4. Charge was framed on 15.01.2010, in respect of the said offences and the prosecution had examined 12 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused persons denied the case of the prosecution and did not examine any witness.

5. The learned trial Court framed points for determination and after considering the entire material on record held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against any of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 353, 189, 506(i) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. However, the learned trial Court held the accused nos. 2 and 3 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C. and convicted them as stated earlier. The accused no. 2 is aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court and has preferred this appeal.

6. The point no. 2 for determination as framed by the learned trial Court, reads thus:

“Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused persons with their common intentions gave threats of injury to the public servants i.e. P.C. Shri Narendra Parit and P.C. Shri Nilesh Sawant while they were doing their duty as public servants and committed offence punishable under Sections 189, 506(i) read with Section 34 of I.P.C.?”

The answer by the learned trial Court to the above point is as follows:

“Partly proved to the extent that accused nos. 2 and 3 have committed offence punishable under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C.”

7. Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) provides as under:

“222. When offence proved included in offence charged –

(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.

(2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.

(3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied.”

8. Admittedly, no charge was framed by the trial Court in respect of the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C.. It is clear from the above provision of Section 222 of Cr.P.C. that the Court would be entitled to convict the accused person for offence which is minor in comparison for which the accused is tried for. Let us therefore see whether the offence punish