JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by Kastoora as directed against the Judgement of Sessions Judge, Kota, dated 20th May, 1969,whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 325, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- or indefault to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case was that deceased Dhanna a body of about 17 or 18 years, was in the employment of the accused. It appears that there was a dispute between Kastoora, appellant, and Dhanna deceased about the delivery of grain; which was settled as wages between the master and the servant. Dhanna was not prepared to work for Kastoora unless the grain was delivered to him. On 6th October, 1968, when Kastoora asked Dhanna to resume his duty, the deceased demanded from the appellant the 'Jowar' as agreed between them or he may be assured by furnishing a surety that the grain would be supplied to him. This reply on the part of the servant enraged the master & it is said that Kastoora caught hold of Dhannaand took him against his wishes from the house of Laxman Kachhi, where Rampal (P.W.3), Bherulal (P.W.4) and Badrilal (P.W.7) were smoking their 'Biris'. After having gone for a little distance from the place, Kastoora dealt a Paraniya blow on the head of Dhanna. On receiving that blow on his head Dhanna fell unconscious. Bheru Lal (P.W.4), who happened to be the father-in-law of Dhanna, rushed towards Dhanna and lifted him and put him on the Chabutara infront of the house of Kana Kachhi. Bherulal then went to Mangilal (P.W.1), where he was serving as a 'Hali' to take leave of him to go to Itawa with Dhanna, who was lying unconscious and speechless. A cart was arranged and Dhanna was then shifted to Police Station. Itawa, where first information report Ex. P/6 was registered by Bherulal. After the case was registered by the S.H.O. Raghunath Singh (P.W.9) Dhanna was immediately shifted to the Dispensary where Dr. M.M. Datta examined the injury of Dhanna. The Doctor found one lacerated wound on the left parietal bone 3" x ⅙" bone deep just above left parietal eminence. Dhanna died at about 3 a.m. that very night and the autopsy of his dead body was performed by the same doctor next morning. M.M. Datta examined the injury of Dhanna. The Doctor found one lacerated wound on the left parietal bone 3" x ⅙" bone deep just above left parietal eminence. Dhanna died at about 3 a.m. that very night and the autopsy of his dead body was performed by the same doctor next morning. According to the doctor the brain haembrance and internal organs were congested. The brain under the seat of injury was lacerated and haemorrhage in the substance of the brain was detected. In the opinion of the doctor the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. After investigation a challan was put up against Kastoora in the Court of the Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Kota No. 1 under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate after taking committal proceedings sent accused Kastoora to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial for the said offence. 3. The prosecution produced Rampal (PW. 3) Bherulal (PW. 4), Laxman (PW. 5), Badrilal(PW. 7) as eye witnesses, but unfortunately except Badrilal (PW. 7) all the other three eye witness turned hostile. Bherulal, who was the author of the first information report went to the extent of deposing that Dhanna, who was very weak on account of long illness, died of an injury in his head, which was caused due to his fall. The learned trial Judge placing reliance on the testimony of Badrilal (PW. 7), which according to the trial court found corroboration from the testimony of Hanumen Singh (PW. 6) and Mangilal (PW. 1), found Kastoora guilty of causing a 'Paraniya' blow on the head of Dhanna deceased, but in the circumstances of the case, the learned Judge convicted the accused appellant for offence under section 325 Indian Penal Code. He, however, acquitted Kastoora of the charge under section 302 Indian Penal Code. It is against this Judgement that the present appeal has been preferred by Kastoora. 4. Mr. Tikku appearing on behalf of Kastoora, appellant, urged that Badrilal (PW. 7) is not a witness of sterling worth as he has gone back upon the statement made by him before the police (Ex. D.1) and, therefore, the trial court has committed a grave error in basing conviction on the sole testimony of Badrilal, whose deposition could be believed only when it found corroboration in material particulars. 7) is not a witness of sterling worth as he has gone back upon the statement made by him before the police (Ex. D.1) and, therefore, the trial court has committed a grave error in basing conviction on the sole testimony of Badrilal, whose deposition could be believed only when it found corroboration in material particulars. He further contended that deposition Hanuman Singh and Mangilal cannot in any manner be pressed into service to seek corroboration to the testimony of Badrilal (PW. 7). 5. The statements of all the eye witnesses along with the statements of Mangilal (PW. 1) and Hanuman Singh (PW. 6) was read over to me. Rampal (PW. 4) and Laxman (PW. 3) have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution version as disclosed in the first information report Bherulal (PW. 4), who was the near relation of the deceased has gone to this extent in deposition to support the defence theory that the death of Dhanna had taken place due to head injury which he had sustained on account of fall from the 'Chabutara'. I regret I cannot accept the defence theory about the injury sustained by the deceased. Badrilal, whose presence at the spot where the incident had taken place, is not denied by the defence, has categorically stated that a 'Paraniya' blow was dealt on the head of Dhanna, decreased, by Kastoora resulting in his instanteous fall. After the 'Paraniya' blow was received by Dhanna he lost his consciousness and he became speechless. It is true that certain portions of the police statement in Ex. D.1, when put to Badri Lal, were denied to have been made by him. But on a careful consideration of the entire statement of Badrilal (PW. 7) it can safely be said that the substratum of the prosecution case is not affected by denying certain portions of the police statement by the witness P.W. 7. There is consistency in the deposition of Badri Lal (PW. 7) from the time he was examined by the police about the fact that Dhanna had sustained a 'Paraniya' blow (PW. 1) was informed by Bherulal (PW. 4), when Bherulal went to take leave from him to go with Dhanna to the Hospital at Itawa that Dhanna was given Paraniya blow on his head by Kastoora and since he sustained that injury he was lying unconscious and speechless. 1) was informed by Bherulal (PW. 4), when Bherulal went to take leave from him to go with Dhanna to the Hospital at Itawa that Dhanna was given Paraniya blow on his head by Kastoora and since he sustained that injury he was lying unconscious and speechless. Similarly Hanuman Singh was also informed soon after the incident about Dhanna receiving 'Paraniya' blow on his head at the hands of Kastoora. Both of these witnesses Mangilal (PW. 1) and Hanuman Singh (PW. 6) have deposed on oath that soon after the incident they were informed about the injury having been inflicted by Kastoora on the head of Dhanna. These statement of Hanuman Singh and Mangilal go a long way to corroborate the testimony of Badrilal (PW. 7). There is no doubt, in my mind, that the story as unfolded by the first information report lodged by Bherulal (PW. 4), was proved to be correct by the testimony of Badrilal (PW. 7). That stands corroborated from the statements of Mangilal (PW. 1) and Hanuman Singh (PW. 6). There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Badrilal (PW. 7) and take a different view of Badrilal's statement. The prosecution, in my opinion has succeeded in establishing the fact that Kastoora had dealt a 'Paraniya' blow on the head of Dhanna. 6. The State has not filed an appeal against the order of acquittal of Kastoora of the charge under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The conviction of Kastoora therefore, under section 325 Indian Penal Code, is maintained. 7. This incident had taken place in the year 1968. Through out the trial Kastoora remained behind the bar and even after his conviction was ordered by the trial court he had to suffer an imprisonment for 20 days before his bail application was accepted by this Court. Kastoora, in his statement recorded under section 342 IPC, has given out his age as 22. It is, contended by learned counsel for the appellant that Kastoora was a young and therefore, he might have lost the balance of his mind when his servant refused to work for him and demanded to furnish surety for the delivery of grain that was settled between them and it was out of that temporary engagement that a 'Paraniya' blow was given by Kastoora on the head of Dhanna. Looking to the period that has elapsed since the incident had taken place and the age of accused appellant, it is prayed that Kastoora may be given the benefit of the provisions of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The circumstances of this case, in my opinion, do justify the extension of the benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to Kastoora, appellant. 8. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, it is hereby ordered that Kastoora shall not be sent to Jail to serve out the substantive sentence awarded to him provided he executes a personal bond for Rs. 2,000/-and furnishes a surety in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. The appellant shall furnish the surety and execute the bond within one month from today. In case he fails to do so, he shall be sent to Jail to serve out the remaining sentence awarded to him. The personal and the surety bond shall be submitted in the Court of Sessions. *******