K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also dispose of the Criminal Revision No. 312 of 1983 (Chhotelal v. Babusingh), which is for enhancement of sentence. ( 2 ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to the revision petitions are these. It is not in dispute that the petitioner Babusingh was, at the relevant time, posted as Head Constable at the police out-pose Compel and Constable Chhotelal (petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 312/83) was posted qllder him. During the night between 25. 12. 77 and 26. 12. 77 Chhotelal was the only police constable available on duty and was allotted the duty of village Gast by the petitioner. In his turn Chhotelal, stating that he would do the duty, protested against being allotted difficult duties. On being told by the petitioner, that he would see that The is dismissed, Chhotelal had retorted by saying that he should mind that he himself was not dismissed. This led to an altercation and scuffle resulting in the fracture of Chhotelals hip joint. ( 3 ) THE occurrence was reported to the police on 27. 12. 77 and a crime was registered. ( 4 ) AT the conclusion of the investigation the petitioner Babusingh was prosecuted. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Magistrate convicted Babusingh under Section 325 of the I. P. C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 100/ -. ( 6 ) IN the appeal preferred by the petitioner Babusingh, the conviction was maintained but he was dealt with under section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (for short the Code) by the III A. S. J. , Indore. 6. In this revision the contention of the petitioner Babusingh is that on the material an record it cannot be held that he had voluntarily caused any hurt to Chhotelal and the injury, if any, sustained by him was during scuffle for which he himself was responsible. Reliance was placed on, the decision in Victor alias Kallas case1 for the view that even without proving his defence, the accused is under law entitled to the benfit of reasonable doubt. Arising from the material on record. ( 7 ) BY the other revision Chhotelal the victim of the offence, has proved for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the petitioner Babusingh. Arising from the material on record. ( 7 ) BY the other revision Chhotelal the victim of the offence, has proved for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the petitioner Babusingh. ( 8 ) THE contention of Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner Babusingh is that the revision preferred by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and the one preferred by Chhotelal deserves to be dismissed. ( 9 ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petitions deserve to be allowed. ( 10 ) I shall first deal with the contentions canvassed by the petitioner Babusingh in support of his revision. ( 11 ) AS is clear from the evidence of Chhotelal, by stating that the Petitioner Babusingh should mind that he himself was not dismissed, had annoyed him and he had the motive for the crime. It can, therefore, safely he held that the occurrence bad been initiated by Babusingh as deposed to by Chhotelal and that he had thrown the latter on the floor made of stones. ( 12 ) THE expression voluntarily causing grievous hurt is defined in section 322 I. P. C. in these terms: Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said voluntarily to cause grievous hurtt. (Emphasis supplied) ( 13 ) IN the circumstances of the case, the conclusion that the petitioner Babusingh knew himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to Chhotelal is clearly sustainable and het cannot, therefore, escape the consequences of his act. ( 14 ) ON a careful consideration I find that the petitioner Babusinghs conviction under section 325 I. P. C. is on firm foundation and in the circumstances of the case he bas rightly been found guilty thereunder. ( 15 ) NOW I take up the other revision. Section 377 of the Code provides for appeal by the State Government against inadequacy of sentence. Under sub-section (3) of section 377 the accused gets the statutory right to plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence. Section 374 (3) (e) of the Code provides that a convict dealt with under section 360 of the Code by any Magistrate may appeal to the Court of Sessions. Chhotelal could only come up in revision. Under sub-section (3) of section 377 the accused gets the statutory right to plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence. Section 374 (3) (e) of the Code provides that a convict dealt with under section 360 of the Code by any Magistrate may appeal to the Court of Sessions. Chhotelal could only come up in revision. Section 360 of the Code provides for release on probation of goodconduct or after admonition. The Provisions of sections 11, 18 and 19 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, are also pertinent. Section 361 of the Code is in these terms Where in any case the Court could have dealt with (a) an accused person under section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1950, or (b) a youthful offender under the Children Act,t 1960, or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so. A perusal of section 360 of the Code shows that direction thereunder regarding release of the convict on probation of good conduct is Tinstead of sentencing him. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner Babusingh was inadequately sentenced. Further I find that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner Babusingh was rightly dealt with under section 360 of the Code. Therefore, this revision petition too deserves to be dismissed. ( 16 ) IN the result, both the revision petitions are dismissed. .