JUDGMENT S.I. Jafri, J. - Badri, Ashok Kumar, Ram Kumar, Sachidanand, Dukhi, Churey Pandey and Ramesh have filed this appeal against their conviction and setences recorded by Sri S.S. Kulshrestha, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad by his judgment and order dated 7th August, 1982 in S. T. No. 70 of 1980. Badri and Ashok Kumar were convicted under S. 148 I.P.C. and setenced to undergo one year's R.I. each. All the appellants were also convicted under Sections 307/149, I.P.C. and under Sections 323, 149 I.P.C. and were sentenced to 3 years' R.I. plus a fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default to undergo 1 year's R.I.) and 8 month's R.I. under the aforesaid section. The appellants Ram Kumar, Sachidanand, Dukhi, Ghurey Pandey and Ramesh were convicted under S. 147 I.P.C. and setenced to undergo six months' R.I. All the sentences were to run concurrent. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14-10-1978 at about 6.30 a.m. near the door of complainant Surya Bux, appellants, viz, Badri, Ashok Kumar, Ram Kumar, Sachidanand, Ghurey Pandey and Ramesh had assaulted Surya Bux on the instigation given by Dukhi, Appellants Badri and Ashok Kumar were said to have been armed with Pharsa whereas the remaining were armed with lathis. On the alarm raised by the injured a number of witnesses arrived at the seene of occurrence. Thereupon, the appellants made good their escape from the place of occurrence. Smt. Shanti Devi w/o Surya Bux went to the Police Station along with Surya Bux and there she lodged a report of the occurrence at 7. 15 a. m. Ram Baran Upadhya Head Constable prepared the chick report and also registered a case under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 I.P.C. against all the appellants. The Head Constable prepared the chiti Mazroobi and sent Surya Bux for medical examination and Dr. S. P. Pathak (P.W. 5) examined his injuries the same day at 8.05 a. m- The doctor found the following injuries on the person of Surya Bux :- 1. Incised wound 3.5 cm. x 1 cm. x.06 cm. on the right side of the forehead, 3 cm. above from the mid point right eyebrow. 2. Incised wound 4 cm. x 7 cm. 0.6 cm. on the right side of scalp, 12 cm. x behind the injury No. 1. 3. Lacerated wound 5 cm. x o.5 cm. Incised wound 3.5 cm. x 1 cm. x.06 cm. on the right side of the forehead, 3 cm. above from the mid point right eyebrow. 2. Incised wound 4 cm. x 7 cm. 0.6 cm. on the right side of scalp, 12 cm. x behind the injury No. 1. 3. Lacerated wound 5 cm. x o.5 cm. on the posterior part of scalp in the middle region, 21 cm. behind and towards the scalp from route of the nose. 4. Tramnatic swelling with contusion 13 cm. x 10 cm. on the dorsal side of the right upper arm. In its lower ?rd region. 5. Abrasion 15 cm. x 3 cm. on the right side of the front of chest, 6 cm. below from the right nipple. 3. The investigation of the case was taken up by Lallan Narain (P.W. 4) who recorded the statements of Smt. Shanti Devi and Surya Bux at the Police Station. Thereafter, the S.I. went to the place of occurrence on the same day, inspected the spot prepared the site plan and examined the remaining witnesses of the occurrence. 4. On the side of the accused Ram Kumar and Badri had received injuries. Ram Kumar was a student of LLB. 1st year on the date of occurrence. He got his injuries examined by Dr. S. Z. Rizvi (D.W. 3) in the District Hospital, Faizabad, the same day at 5.35 p.m. while the injuries of Badri were also examined at 5.55 p.m. the same day. 5. Ram Kumar went to the Police Station Kotwali, Faizabad at 3.15 p.m. on 14-10-78 and lodged his report of the occurrence whereupon a case under Sections 323, 147, 504 I.P.C. was registered against Surya Bux and 5 or 6 unknown persons. It appears that the police did not pursue the matter on the report lodged by Ram Kumar. Lallan Narain (P.W. 4) after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet against all the appellants. 6. Appellants except Badri and Ram Kumar denied their participation in the occurrence. Ram Kumar stated that while he was studying in his room, he heard the alarm and noticed that Badri was being assaulted by Surya Bux and 5 or 6 unknown persons whereupon he rushed to Badri inorder to save him. He further stated that he also plied danda in defending Badri and himself. Ram Kumar stated that while he was studying in his room, he heard the alarm and noticed that Badri was being assaulted by Surya Bux and 5 or 6 unknown persons whereupon he rushed to Badri inorder to save him. He further stated that he also plied danda in defending Badri and himself. Badri also stated in the like manner in his statement under S. 313 Cr.P.C. The accused have also examined three witnesses, namely, Shyam Sunder (D.W. 1) Ram Baran Upadhya (D. W. 2) and Dr. S. Z. Rizvi (D.W. 3) in their defence. 7. Prosecution examined in all 5 witnesses in support of its case and out of them Smt. Shanti Devi (P.W. 1), Ram Newal (P.W. 2) and Surya Bux (P.W. 3) were examined as eye witnesses of the occurrence. Surya Bux had narrated the entire prosecution case in detail before the court and stated that on the date of occurrence at about 6 a.m. while he was returning after easing himself and when he had reached in front of his door, he was surrounded by the appellants and at the instigation of Dukhi appellant, he was assaulted by all the appellants resulting injuries on his person. He further stated that out of the appellants, Badri and Ashok Kumar were armed with Pharsa while the remaining were armed with lathis. He further deposed that on the alarm raised by him a number of persons had arrived there and witnessed the occurrence. He further stated that he had piled danda in order to save himself from further onslaught of the accused in his self-defence. It was also stated by him that after the occurrence he was taken to the Police Station by his wife Smt. Shanti Devi where his statement was recorded by the S.I. He was also sent for medical examination by the police and his injuries were examined. The evidence of Surya Bux is corroborated by the statement of Shanti Devi (P.W. 1) and Ram Nawal (P.W. 2). 8. The learned counsel of the appellant has contended that the prosecution has not come with the clean hands and has not given a true version of the occurrence as admittedly 2 amongst the appellants, namely, Badri and Ram Kumar had received injuries on their person but Smt. Shanti Devi did not mention about the injuries of the aforesaid accused in the report lodged by her. This contention is devoid of any merit as Shanti Devi being a lady might not have mentioned about the injuries in her report being upset on account of the happening. However, Surya Bux who had received injuries had clearly stated in his evidence before the Court that he had plied lathi in his defence. Badri and Ram Kumar have received very minor injuries and the possibility that these injuries were caused to them by Surya Bux while exercising his right of private defence cannot be ruled out. I have very carefully gone through the statements of the three prosecution witnesses examined in this case and to me their evidence inspires confidence. I, therefore, hold them as reliable witnesses. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that in view of the simple nature of the injuries received by Surya Bux, the offence does not travel beyond the ambit of S. 324 I.P.C. I am in agreement with him and I also feel that the conviction recorded under Sections 307, 149 I.P.C. against the appellants deserves to be set aside and instead the appellants are liable to be convicted under S. 324 I.P.C. read with S. 149 I.P.C. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the occurrence in this case had taken place more than 10 years ago. The appellants have been living with love and affection in the village and if they are sent to jail to serve out the sentence, the relationship between the parties may be jeopardised and result in further marpit or litigation. It was also submitted by him that the appellants are the only earning members of their family and if the appellants are sent to jail for serving out the sentence, their family members may be put to starvation. It was also submitted by him that the appellant Ram Kumar has now become a practising Advocate and Sachiddanand and Ramesh have been serving in the Army. Under the circumstances, I consider it just and proper to convict all the appellants under Sections 328, 149 I.P.C. and also affirm their conviction under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C. recorded by the trial court and instead of sending the appellants to jail to serve out the remaining sentence, the appellants Badri, Ashok Kumar, Dukhi and Ghurey Pandey are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-each and the period of sentence already undergone by them. 1000/-each and the period of sentence already undergone by them. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo one year's R.I. Out of the fine of Rs. 4000/- thus deposited by them, Rs. 3000/- be given to Surya Bux injured as compensation under S. 357, Cr.P.C. so that the wounds sustained by him may be completely healed up. The accused Ram Kumar, Sachiddanand and Ramesh shall also be not sent to jail for serving out their sentences and instead they are place on probation for good conduct for a period of one year each on their furnishing two sureties of Rs. 2000/-and a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M., Faizabad. Learned counsel for the appellants state that the appellants shall not consider the imposition of fine on them as enhancement of sentence. The appellants Badri, Ashok Kumar, Dukhi and Bhurey Pandey are allowed 3 months time to pay Rs. 1000/- each from the receipt of the record from the High Court to the court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad. The Vth Additional Sessions Judge Faizabad after the deposit of fine imposed on the appellants shall give Rs. 3000/-to Surya Bux injured and the remaining Rs: 1000/- shall go to the State Exchequer. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of all the appellants under S. 307 I.P.C. read with 149 I.P.C. is set side and instead they are convicted under S. 324 I.P.C. read with S. 149 I.P.C. The conviction of all the appellants under Sections 323, 149 I.P.C. recorded by the trial court is also affirmed. The conviction of Badri and Ashok Kumar appellants are also affirmed under S. 148 I.P.C. whereas conviction of the remaining appellants Ram Kumar, Sachiddanand, Dukhey, Ghurey Pandey and Ramesh under S. 147 I.P.C. recorded by the trial court is also affirmed. The appellants Badri, Ashok Kumar, Dukhey and Bhurey Panday shall not be sent to jail for serving out the remaining sentence and instead they are sentenced to pay Rs. 1000/- each and also the period of sentence already undergone by them. Ram Kumar, Sachiddanand and Ramesh shall also be not sent to jail and instead they are placed on probation under the provisions of U.P. Probation of First Offenders Act for a period of one year for maintaining good behaviour on their furnishing two sureties each of Rs. 1000/- each and also the period of sentence already undergone by them. Ram Kumar, Sachiddanand and Ramesh shall also be not sent to jail and instead they are placed on probation under the provisions of U.P. Probation of First Offenders Act for a period of one year for maintaining good behaviour on their furnishing two sureties each of Rs. 2000/- and a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M., Faizabad within three months from the receipt of the record from High Court. It is made clear that Ram Kumar, who is now a practising Advocate, shall not be proceeded against for professional misconduct on account of his conviction by the Bar Council U.P. as if it is done the very purpose of U.P. Probation of First Offenders would be, frustrated. The U.P. Probation of First Offender Act is reformative in nature. Once a convict is placed on probation for maintaining good behaviour, he shall be able to reform himself for becoming a good citizen if his source of livelihood is taken away by the concerned authorities. Likewise, Sachidanand and Ramesh who are serving in the Army shall not be subjected to any departmental proceedings for terminating their services by the authorities concerned by virtue of their aforesaid conviction. 12. With the directions as indicated above, this appeal is partly allowed.