JUDGMENT T. R. Handa, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 30-11-1974 whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the present appellant under section 324 I P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a tine of Rs. 500/-. 2. The story of the prosecution briefly put is that on 19-4-1972 at about 9 a. m. PW Smt. Kailasho who is a widow aged about 50 years was sitting in the court-yard of her house when the appellant approached her and told her that he had brought a message from her daughter about her welfare. PW Smt. Kailasho offered a cot to the appellant for his sitting and herself sat on the floor. The appellant who was then concealing a DRAT in the PATTOO which he was wrapping around him took out that Drat and all of a sudden started inflicting blows with that on the person of Smt. Kailasho. Besides PW Smt. Kailasho, her daughter-in-law PW Smt. Kamla and her two infant grand chilren were present in the house. PW Smt. Kamla was then on the upper storey cooking food in the kitchen. PW Smt. Kailasho raised an alarm which attracted the attention of PW Smt. Kamla who noticed the appellant inflicting blows on her mother-in-law. PW Smt. Kamla rushed down and in the meanwhile Shri Kuldip Chand DW was also seen coming that side presumably attracted by the alarm raised by Smt. Kailasho. The appellant thereupon made good his escape after inflicting as many as 13 injuries on the person of Smt. Kailasho. Smt. Kailasho was then taken in a PALKI to civil hospital Badsar by PWs Hans Raj, Rulia and Chhango and DW Kuldip Chand etc. As no doctor was available at Badsar hospital, she was then taken to Police Station Badsar where her statement Ex. PA was recorded on the basis of which formal First Information Report Ex. PA/1 was registered. Smt. Kailasho was then taken in a PALKI to civil hospital Badsar by PWs Hans Raj, Rulia and Chhango and DW Kuldip Chand etc. As no doctor was available at Badsar hospital, she was then taken to Police Station Badsar where her statement Ex. PA was recorded on the basis of which formal First Information Report Ex. PA/1 was registered. She was then taken to civil hospital Bhota where she was medically examined the same day at about 2.45 p. m. During the course of investigation it was revealed that four or five years prior to the occurrence the appellant had made an application at the Police Station accusing PW Smt. Kamla daughter-in-law of Smt. Kailasho of being a woman of loose character which act of the appellant was resented by Smt. Kailasho. This ultimately resulted in inimical relations between the appellant and Smt. Kailasho and was the alleged motive of the crime. 3. The plea of the appellant in the trial Court was that Smt. Kailasho had been injured by some unidentified person and on account of the inimical relations between him and Smt. Kailasho she had falsely involved him in this case. 4. It is not disputed in this case and otherwise also this fact is amply established from the medical evidence as furnished by Dr. Har Kishan Sud (PW 6) that PW Smt. Kailasho was attacked with a sharp edged weapon on the morning of 19-4-1972 and as a result thereof she received as many as 13 simple injuries. The appellant himself also admitted in his examination recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 that Smt. Kailasho had been injured and removed to the hospital though according to him such injuries had been caused by some unidentified assailant. The only point, therefore, which needs determination in the instant case is whether the injuries found on the person of Smt. Kailasho were caused by the present appellant. 5. PW 1 Smt. Kailasho and her daughter-in-law PW 2 Smt. Kamla are the only eye-witnesses of the occurrence though a few others, namely, PW 15 Chhango Ram, DW 1 Kuldip Chand, PW 4 Rulia am and PW 5 Hans Raj also reached there soon after the occurrence. 5. PW 1 Smt. Kailasho and her daughter-in-law PW 2 Smt. Kamla are the only eye-witnesses of the occurrence though a few others, namely, PW 15 Chhango Ram, DW 1 Kuldip Chand, PW 4 Rulia am and PW 5 Hans Raj also reached there soon after the occurrence. The prosecution relies upon the testimony of these PWs in sapport of its contention that it was the appellant alone who was responsible for the injuries found on the person of Smt. Kailasho. All these PWs as also the appellant Bansi Lal are the residents of the same village Ropa and admittedly they were known to one and other since before the occurrence. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the broad day light between 8 and 9 a. m. in the month of April and in the open compound of the house of PW Smt. Kailasho. Under the circumstances it is difficult to believe that Smt. Kailasho who immediately before the occurrence was sitting on a cot in her courtyard was unable to identify her assailant. For the same reason it is not possible to believe that PW 2 Smt. Kamla was not in a position to identify the person who had attacked her mother-in-law, it is in this background that we have to appreciate the oral testimony of these two eye-witnesses. PW 1 Smt. Kailasho was firm in her stand that it was Bansi appellant who had come to her courtyard and who after conveying the message from her daughter took out a Drat from the fold of his Pattoo and started inflicting blows on her indiscriminately. Her statement finds full corroboration from the testimony of PW 2 Smt. Kamla who claims to have seen the occurrence from the kitchen which was on the Upper floor. She came down on seeing this occurrence and in the meantime the appellant made good his escape. According to both these witnesses DW Kuldip was the fin>t to arrive at the place of occurrence and it was on seeing him that the appellant ran away. PW 2 Smt. Kamla then immediately rushed to her uncle PW 15 Chango Ram and narrated all that had happened. She specifically mentioned to Chhango Ram that Bansi appellant had inflicted injuries to her mother-in-law. PW 2 Smt. Kamla then immediately rushed to her uncle PW 15 Chango Ram and narrated all that had happened. She specifically mentioned to Chhango Ram that Bansi appellant had inflicted injuries to her mother-in-law. Chhango Ram appearing as PW 15 supported the testimony of PW Smt Kamla that she had informed him about Bansi Lal appellant having inflicted injuries to her mother-in-law on which he accompanied her to her house and from there he alongwith others took PW Smt. karasuo in a Palki to Badsar hospital. PWs Rulia Ram and Hans Raj and DW Kuldip who reached the spot immediately after the occurrence were also similarly informed the moment on their arrival that Bansi Lai appellant had injured Smt. Kailasho. PW 4 Rulia Ram deposed in his cross-examination that PW Smt. Kamla had told him in the presence of DW Kuldip that Bansi appellant had inflicted the injuries on her mother-in-law. PW 5 Hans Raj of coarse turned hostile but a careful scrutiny of his statement recorded in Court would show that he was not coming out with the truth and in fact he had also been informed at the first available opportunity that it was Bansi appellant who had caused injuries to Smt. Kailasho. This witness insisted that he neither made any enquiry as to how Smt. Kailasho had sustained injuries nor was he informed about her assailant although he admits to have accompanied Smt. Kailasho from her house to the hospital. It is most unnatural that this witness who claims to be the brother-in-law of Smt. Kailasho and who remained with her along-with others right from the spot of occurrence till she reached the hospital, remained in the dark about the cause of the injuries suffered by Smt. Kailasho and still made no enquiries about the same. After he was declared hostile he admitted in his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor that Chhango Ram PW had come to the place where he was ploughing at the time of the occurrence. It may be stated that after Chhango Ram learnt about the occurrence from PW Smt. Kamla he collected Hans Raj PW on his way to the spot of occurrence. Hans Raj PW next admitted that he did state before the Police that Chhango Ram had apprised him that Bansi Lai had injured Smt. Kailasho and had run away thereafter. It may be stated that after Chhango Ram learnt about the occurrence from PW Smt. Kamla he collected Hans Raj PW on his way to the spot of occurrence. Hans Raj PW next admitted that he did state before the Police that Chhango Ram had apprised him that Bansi Lai had injured Smt. Kailasho and had run away thereafter. It is just not possible to conclude from the testimony of this witness that he neither made any enquiry about the details of the occurrence nor he came to know about the same all through the period he remained in the company of PW Smt, Kailasho. DW Kuldip was frank enough to concede that he was the first to reach the spot on hearing lot of notice from the house of Smt. Kailasho. On his reaching there he found Smt. Kailasho lying injured and on his enquiry she told him that Bansi appellant had inflated injuries to her Ai that time the witness saw a person running away though he could not identify him as that person was running away from him. The evidence of this witness is most natural. It was argued that as per version of PW Smt. Kailasho and PW 2 Smt. Kamla, Kuldip DW had arrived at the spot during the presence cf the appellant and to that extent Kuldip DW has refused to support these PWs. A careful scrutiny of the statements made by PWs Smt. Kailasho and Smt. Kamla would reveal that all that these witnesses meant to say was that the appellant ran away on seeing Kuldip DW coming towards the spot. It may be that the appellant and the PWs had spotted DW Kuldip and thereafter the appellant immediately made good his escape with his back towards DW Kaldip with the result that this DW could not identify the appellant when the latter was running. There is thus no contradiction between the statements of PWs Smt. Kailasho and Smt Kamla and that made by DW Kuldip. It is thus amply proved that both the PWs Smt. Kailasho and Smt. Kamla has seen the appellant committing the alleged offence and that they revealed his name to the other PWs immediately after the occurrence and as these PWs happened to arrive at the spot. It is thus amply proved that both the PWs Smt. Kailasho and Smt. Kamla has seen the appellant committing the alleged offence and that they revealed his name to the other PWs immediately after the occurrence and as these PWs happened to arrive at the spot. There appears to be no reason whatsoever to doubt the veracity of these two eye-witnesses that they had seen the real culprit inflicting the blows on the person of Smt. Kailasho. At the same time it is not possible to comprehend that these witnesses were in any manner interested in shielding the real culprit and in falsely implicating the present appellant. If we bear in mind the fact that Smt. Kamla PW 2 immediately after the occurrence rushed to the place of Chhango PW 15 and Kuldip DW had reached the spot during her absence, it would be noted that Smt. Kamla named Bansi appellant before Chhango of her own in the absence of Smt. Kailasho and similarly Smt. Kailasho named Bansi appellant as her assailant before Kuldip in the absence of Smt. Kamla. It is difficult to appreciate as to how both these witnesses could think of concocting a common version of falsely implicating Bansi appellant and exculpating the real offender, especially when there was absolutely no time lag between the commission of the occurrence and the narration of their respective versions by these PWs. Again soon after the occurrence PW Smt. Kailasho, as was expected in natural course, was carried in the Palki to civil hospital Badsar. As the doctor incharge was not present there she was taken to Police Station Badsar where her statement was recorded at 11.40 a. m., that is, about 2 or 3 hours of the occurrence. In this statement also she in no ambiguous terms mentioned the name of Bansi appellant as her assailant. 6. There appears to be thus no reason to doubt the veracity of PW Smt. Kailasho which finds due corroboration from PW Smt. Kamla and other PWs who reached the spot soon after the occurrence, that it was none else except Bansi appellant who had inflicted blows on her person. 7. 6. There appears to be thus no reason to doubt the veracity of PW Smt. Kailasho which finds due corroboration from PW Smt. Kamla and other PWs who reached the spot soon after the occurrence, that it was none else except Bansi appellant who had inflicted blows on her person. 7. It was then argued on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution had failed to prove any motive on the part of the appellant to commit the alleged offence and the story of motive as originally put forward by the prosecution had been disbelieved by the trial Court. As already stated the prosecution case was that about 4 or 5 years back to the occurrence the appellant has made false accusation against the daughter-in-law of Smt. Kailasho that she was a woman of loose character. Even if there be any truth in this version, the same could not have provided the appellant with a motive to commit the present offence after lapse of about five years. Of course the prosecution has not succeeded in bringing forth the motive which moved the appellant to commit the present offence but this omission on the part of the prosecution in the facts of the instant case appears to be of no consequence. The motive of an act is normally known to the person who commits the act. The prosecution could only suggest what may be the motive and may not in each case succeed in bringing out the true motive which is usually hidden in the mind of the perpetrator of the crime. The evidence of motive is an important piece of evidence when the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence. Where, however, the prosecution can prove its case by positive evidence of reliable eye-witnesses, the absence of motive is of no importance. When the facts are clear and there is no doubt about the accused having committed the offence charged against him, it is immaterial that no motive has been proved and in such a case it can be assumed that there was a motive though it has remained hidden. Thus the mere fact that the prosecution in the instant case has failed to prove the actual motive which moved the appellant to commit this offence, is of no significance when the offence against the appellant stands fully proved from the oral evidence discussed above. 8. Thus the mere fact that the prosecution in the instant case has failed to prove the actual motive which moved the appellant to commit this offence, is of no significance when the offence against the appellant stands fully proved from the oral evidence discussed above. 8. I would accordingly endorse the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that after recording conviction of the appellant the learned Sessions Judge had not applied his mind properly in dealing with the appellant. What the learned counsel meant to argue was that in view of the facts of this case the learned Sessions Judge should not have committed the appellant to prison but instead should have given him a chance to reform himself by releasing him on probation. It may not be incorrect to say that the more difficult task of a criminal Court starts after it finds an accused person guilty of a particular offence. It may not be very often too difficult to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused person but it would always require a great sense of responsibility on the part of the Court to decide as to how to deal with a convict especially when he happens to be a youthful offender. Law provides different punishments for different kinds of offences and at the same time it confers a wide discretionary jurisdiction on the Courts to release the convicts, not involved in heinous offences, on probation instead of incarcerating them to prison. The main object in adopting either of these courses is two fold: the prevention of crime and the reformation of the offender. In some cases a deterrent punishment may be called for to achieve the aforesaid object while in others, infliction of punishment of this type may have just the reverse effect and may convert an otherwise harmless offender into a hardened criminal and a potential danger to the society. Release on probation may be more appropriate remedy in such like cases. It is in this sphere that the Court is required to exhibit its sense of responsibility and decide as to which course it should adopt in a particular case. Release on probation may be more appropriate remedy in such like cases. It is in this sphere that the Court is required to exhibit its sense of responsibility and decide as to which course it should adopt in a particular case. The age, character and antecedents of the offender, the circumstances in which he committed the offence and the environment in which he has been brought up are some of the circumstances that deserve consideration in determining which of the two courses, namely sending the offender to jail or releasing him on probation would be conducive in achieving the laudable object of reforming the offender and preventing the crime. Normally a youthful offender whose character and antecedents are not shown to be bad, should not be committed to jail as this course is very likely to convert an otherwise harmless person into a hardened criminal and a potential danger both to the society as also to the complainant at whose complaint he was prosecuted. This would certainly frustrate the very object of awarding the punishment. 9. The appellant in the instant case is a young man of about 32 years. No previous conviction is attributed to him and the present occurrence is alleged to be his first lapse in life. Three is no suggestion if he is of undesirable character or with bad antecedents. He is not shown to have ever exibited a tendency towards crime. He is found to have caused some injuries with a sharp edged weapon to an old woman but all of them were of simple nature. The motive for this offence remains shrouded in mystery, in the light of these facts, and circumstances, it was a fit case in which the learned Sessions Judge should have exercised his discretion in releasing the appellant on probation rather than committing him to jail for a short term of two years and thus exposing him to the risk of being turned into a hardened criminal in the association of other criminals of this type. 10. I would accordingly while maintaining conviction of the appellant, set aside the sentence imposed upon him by the court below and instead direct that the appellant be released on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 10. I would accordingly while maintaining conviction of the appellant, set aside the sentence imposed upon him by the court below and instead direct that the appellant be released on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur undertaking to receive sentence whenever called upon to do so within the period of two years from the date of execution of the bond and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The appellant shall execute the bond as stated above before the learned Sessions Judge within two weeks from today.