Surjit Singh, J.(Oral)-By means of this appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, State has sought modification of the judgment, dated 22.9.1997 of learned Sessions Court to the extent that the respondent is held guilty, convicted of and punished for offences, under Sections 332 and 333 IPC instead of offences, under Sections 323 and 325 IPC, as ordered by the trial Court.

2. Case was registered against the respondent at the instance of Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Chowari, who made written complaint Ext. PE. FIR is Ext. PF. As per Ext. PF, respondent went to a store of Public Works Department at Chowari on 7.9.1992 at 6.30 p.m. and picked up a piece of wood from the store and with that piece of wood, he hit PW-3 Duni Chand, a regular Chowkidar and PW-4 Mukhtyar Singh, a daily waged Chowkidar, who were on duty at that time. Both, PW-3 Duni Chand and PW-4 Mukhtyar Singh were got medically examined. Duni Chand was found to have sustained a simple injury on the outer aspect of left arm, in the shape of a red contusion. Mukhtyar Singh had three injuries, two of which were - a contusion and an abrasion, which were simple and one was grievous, being fracture of clevicle bone (left side). Police completed the investigation and challaned the respondent.

3. Prosecution examined the two injured, namely PW-3 Duni Chand and PW-4 Mukhtyar Singh, and the doctors, who conducted the medical examination of the two injured, namely PW-1 Dr. Ravi Kant Ahuja and PW-2 Dr. V.K. Pathak, to prove the charge. It also proved some documents to substantiate the plea that the two injured were discharging their duties as Chowkidars at the time, when they were assaulted and caused hurt, including a grievous hurt.

4. Trial Court concluded that the two Chowkidars, namely PW-3 Duni Chand and PW-4 Mukhtyar Singh had been hit by the respondent with a piece of wood, as a result of which Duni Chand sustained a simple injury while PW-4 Mukhtyar Singh sustained two simple and one grievous injury. However, trial Court observed that as per evidence on record, the incident had taken place outside the enclosure of store and, therefore, it was not a case of causing hurt and grievous hurt to public servants in the discharge of their duties, but a case of voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt, under Sections 323 and 325 IPC.

5. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General and the learned counsel, representing the respondent, and gone through the record.

6. View taken by the learned Sessions Court that this is not a case of voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt to the public servants in the discharge of their duties is not correct and is contrary to the evidence on record.

7. The mere fact that the two public servants were outside the enclosure of the store, does not in any way show that they were not discharging their duties as public servants at the time when they were assaulted. They were very much on duty. As a matter of fact, it has come in the evidence that the store of PWD on the spot was not even enclosed and certain store items were lying around the site where incident took place.

8. Otherwise also, to bring a case within the mischief of Sections 332, 333 or 353 IPC, it is not the requirement of law that the public servant should be within the four walls of his duty place. If he happens to be outside his duty place, but at the same time discharging his duty as a public servant, he will be deemed to be on duty and discharging his duties as public servant and in case he is assaulted or caused any hurt, the offender will be liable under Sections 353, 332 or 333, as the case may be.

9. In view of the above stated position, appeal is accepted. Judgment of the trial Court is modified and the respondent is convicted of offences, under Sections 332 and 333 IPC instead of offences, under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. He be produced in person on 21st April, 2010 for being heard on the question of quantum of senten