JUDGMENT B.N. Katju, J. 1. ISHRAT alias Nanhey Saheb has filed this appeal against the judgment of III Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Bareilly dated 20-9- 1973 passed in Sessions Trial No. 207 of 1971 convicting him under Sections 324 and 452 IPC and releasing him on probation of good conduct on entering into a bond of Rs. 1000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to appear and receive sentence when called upon to do so within a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 2. FAROOQ Mian (PW 1) is the son of Smt. Kamini Begum (PW 5) and Kumari Shahjahan Begum (PW 2) and Kumari Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4) are the daughters of Smt. Kamini Begum (PW 5). Ail these witnesses reside in the same house in mohalla Jasholi in the city of Bareilly. Ishrat alias Nanhey Saheb appellant and Nusrat co-accused are the sons of Shahzadey Ali. Arshad All and Taj Mian co-accused are the sons of Irshad Ali co-accused. The appellant and these four co-accused are related to each other and are residents of Mohalla Zakhira in the city of Bareilly in which Rafiq co-accused also resides. 3. THE case of the prosecution is that prior to the occurrence one Chhotey Mian had kidnapped and raped Kumari Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4). The case regarding that incident was instituted against chhotey Mian under Section 363, 368 and 376 IPO which was committed to the court of Sessions and was pending at the time of the incident. chhotey Mian, the appellant and the five co-accused, namely, Nusrat, Irshad Ali, Arshad Ali, Taj Mian and Rafiq wanted that Kumari Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4) should not depose, against chhotey Mian in that case and the parties should enter into a compromise. But Kumari Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4) appeared in the committing court and gave evidence against Chhotey Mian which annoyed chhotey Mian, the appellant and the five co-accused and they extended threats to Km. Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4) and her brother Farooq Mian (PW 1). Report (Ext. Ka-1) was lodged by Farooq Mian (PW 1) under Section 506 IPC against the appellant Irshad Ali co-accused and others on 1-11- 1969 at Police Station Killa. Report (Ext. Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4) and her brother Farooq Mian (PW 1). Report (Ext. Ka-1) was lodged by Farooq Mian (PW 1) under Section 506 IPC against the appellant Irshad Ali co-accused and others on 1-11- 1969 at Police Station Killa. Report (Ext. Ka-2) was lodged by Farooq Mian (PW 1) under Sections 323 and 506 IPC against Irshad Ali, Rafiq and Taj Mian co-accused and others on 13-11-1969 at Police Station Killa and report (Ext. Ka. 4 was sent by Farooq Mian (PW 1) on 8-12-1969 to the Superintendent of Police, Bareilly against the appellant, Irshad Ali, Taj Mian and Rafiq co- accused and others in which apprehension of danger to his life as well as to the lives of his family members was expressed by him. On 21-12-1969 at about 3 P. M. while Farooq Mian (PW 1) was eating his lunch on the first floor of his house and Kumari Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4) her sister Kumari Shahjahan Begum (PW 2) and their mother Smt. Kamini Begum (PW 5) were sitting in the court-yard of their house the appellant armed with a knife along with the five co-accused came there and asked Farooq Mian (PW 1) to come out. When Kumari Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4) objected to their entering inside their house the appellant said "aaj isey hi khatam kiye deta hoon" and gave her a blow on her back with his knife. On her alarm Kumari Shahjahan Begum (PW 2) and Smt. Kamini Begum (PW 5) came to save her and the five co-accused assaulted them with bricks and shoes. Farooq Mian (PW 1) and Munney, Asfaq and Shamim, who were also present in the house then challenged the appellant and the co-accused and they ran away. 4. THE first information report was lodged by Kumari Shahjahan Begum (PW 2) at police station Killa at 3.45 P. M on the same day (21-12-1969) the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence being six furlongs. Kumari Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4) was taken to the Hospital by Farooq Mian (PW 1) on a rickshaw and her injury was examined by Dr. Ram Singh (PW 9) at 3.50 P.M. on the same day (21-12-1969) and the under mentioned injury was found on her person: (1) Punctured wound 2\ cm. x 0.75 cm. Kumari Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4) was taken to the Hospital by Farooq Mian (PW 1) on a rickshaw and her injury was examined by Dr. Ram Singh (PW 9) at 3.50 P.M. on the same day (21-12-1969) and the under mentioned injury was found on her person: (1) Punctured wound 2\ cm. x 0.75 cm. X depth not probed on the back of left chest 9 cm. outer to the middle line 15 cm. above the level of iliac crest, the wound was oblique with clean cut margins and was bleeding. 5. THE injuries of Kumari Shahjahan Begum (PW 2) and Smt. Kamini Begum (PW 5) were examined by Dr. R. D. Mathur (PW 11) at 8.10 and 8.20 P. M. respectively on the same day (21-12-69) and the undermentioned injuries were found on their person : Kumari Shahjahan Begum : (1) Traumatic swelling 3 cm. x 2 cm. at front and inner side of 1/3 of lower part of the left forearm. (2) Abrasion 1.5 cm. x 0.4 cm. at the outer and back of the left shoulder. (3) Complain of pain back at the left scapula. Smt. Kamini Begum : (1) Contusion 4 cm. x 1 cm. on the front power part right forearm. 6. THE prosecution examined five eye witnesses, namely Farooq Mian (PW 1), Kumari Shahjahan Begum (PW 2) Sabir(PW3) Kumari Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4) and Smt. Kamini Begum (PW 5). The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he was implicated falsely due to enmity. 7. THE trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant and convicted him as mentioned earlier. The five co-accused namely, Nusrat, Irshad AH, Arshad Ali, Taj Mian and Rafiq were, however, acquitted. 8. SABIR (PW 3) did not support the case of the prosecution and was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. His evidence is, therefore, of no value. Farooq Mian (PW1) Km. Shahjahan Begum (PW 2) Km. Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4) and Smt. Kamini Begum (PW 5) supported the prosecution case regarding the incident and Farooq Mian (PW 1) also gave evidence regarding the motive mentioned earlier. The evidence of Km. Shahjahan Begum (PW 2) is corroborated by the first information report lodged by her promptly in which Farooq Mian (PW 1) Km. Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4) and Smt. Kamini Begum (PW 5) supported the prosecution case regarding the incident and Farooq Mian (PW 1) also gave evidence regarding the motive mentioned earlier. The evidence of Km. Shahjahan Begum (PW 2) is corroborated by the first information report lodged by her promptly in which Farooq Mian (PW 1) Km. Afsar Jahan (PW 4) and Smt. Kamini Begum (PW 5) are mentioned as eye witnesses. The evidence of all these witnesses is supported by the medical evidence. The presence of Km. Shahjahan Begum (PW 2), Km. Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4) and Smt. Kamini Begum (PW 5) is established by the injuries received by them and the presence of Farooq Mian (PW 1) at the time of the incident appears to be natural as the occurrence took place inside his house. The evidence of all the aforesaid eye witnesses regarding the place of occurrence is supported by the fact that blood stained cement plaster vat recovered by the Investigating Officer from their house. Considering the fact that the incident took place in broad day light the aforesaid eye witnesses were bound to recognie the appellant. Nothing has been brought out in their cross examination to shake their credit. In out opinion, their evidence is reliable and establishes the back of Km. Afsar jahan Begum (PW 4) inside her house. He was, therefore, rightly convicted by the trial court under Sections 452 and 324 IPG. 9. IT may be mentioned that the evidence of Mohammad Khalid (PW 1) is not material as he has merely deposed that Shahzadey Ali, the father of the appellant and Nusrat co-accused had informed him that the police were annoyed with him as he was a congress worker and were likely to implicate him and his sons falsely in some case. 10. WE have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on the question of sentence. The trial court has not passed any sentence against the appellant under Section 452 and 324 IPO and has instead released him on probation of good conduct on his entering into a bond of Rs. 1000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 1000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. We are, however, of the opinion that the order of the trial court releasing the appellant on probation of good conduct was wholly unjustified in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The assault on Km. Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4) was made by the appellant in order to prevent her from appearing in the case under Section 363, 368 and 376 IPG against chhotey Mian. The motive for the assault was, therefore, to obstruct the administration of justice which must be viewed with utmost seriousness. The injury caused to Mm. Afsar Jahan Begum (PW 4) by the appellant with a knife was no doubt simple but it was caused on a vital part of the body, namely, the back and Dr. Ram Singh has deposed that it was of a serious nature and if it was not properly treated she was likely to die as a result of haemorrhage. The appellant was also about 20 years of age at the time of the incident. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the order releasing the appellant on probation of good conduct deserves to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 IPC and also to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC, It may be mentioned that this Court has been conferred power under Section 6 of U. P. First Offenders' Probation Act to set aside an order releasing an accused on probation of good conduct in appeal and to award him a sentence of imprisonment in its place. In our opinion this does not amount to enhancement of sentence as no sentence was awarded to the appellant by the trial court. In our opinion this does not amount to enhancement of sentence as no sentence was awarded to the appellant by the trial court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with the modification that the order directing the appellant to be released on probation of good conduct on his entering into a bond with two sureties each in the like amount-to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour is set aside and instead he is sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC and to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 IPC. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 11. ISHRAT alias Nanhey Saheb appellant is on bail He shall be taken into custody forthwith and shall serve out the sentences awarded to him. His bail bonds are cancelled. 12. CRIMINAL revision No. 2286 of 1973 has been filed by Farooq Mian praying that the appellant be convicted according to law. The prayer is obviously misconceived as the appellant has been convicted by the trial court under Sections 324 and 452 IPC. It is accordingly dismissed. In conclusion we may add that in view of the fact that the appeal and the revision were listed before us, we had jurisdiction to dispose them off under proviso (a) to Rule 2 of chapter V of the High Court Rules. Appeal dismissed.