JUDGMENT S. I. Jafri, J. 1. Brahmadeen, Bankey Lal, Arjun, Ram Swarup, Prabhu Dayal, Sri Krishna alias Raja Babu, Akilesh Mahendra and Daya Shankar have filed this appeal against the order dated 13-5-1983 passed by Sri R. K. Srivastava, Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur convicting and sentencing them in Sessions Trial Mo. 978 of 1980. 2. All the appellants except Prabhu Dayal were convicted u/Sec. 308 IPC and were sentenced to under go 4 years R. I. each. Bankey, Prabhu Dayal and Brahmadeen were convicted u/Sec. 148 IPC and sentenced to 2 years R. I. each. Arjun Lal, Ram Swarup Sri Krishna alias Raja Babu, Akhlesh Mahendra and Daya Shanker were convicted u/Sec. 147 IPC and sentenced to one year's R. I. each. Prabhu Dayal. was convicted u/Sec 308 read with 149 IPC and he was sentenced to 4 years' R. I. Brahmadeen and Bankey Lal were said to have been armed with 'banka' whereas Arjun Lal, Ram Swarup, Sri Krishna alias Raja Babu, Akhlesh, Mahendra and Daya Shanker were said to have been armed with lathis. Prabhu Dayal was said to have been armed with his licensed gun. 3. Bankey and Arjun Lal are sons of Brahmadeen appellant. Ram Swarup and Prabhu Dayal are the cousins of Brahmadeen appellant. Sri Krishna alias Raja Babu and Akilesh are the sons of Prabhu Dayal appellant. Mahendra is the son of Ram Swarup appellant and Daya Shanker is the cousin of Sri Krishna alias Raja Babu appellant. In this way all the appellants are related to each other. 4. The case of the prosecution is that at about 4.30 P.M. on 31-12-78 Sunil Kumar came out of his house situate in village Amramau P. S. Misrikh, Sitapur whereupon all the appellants had surrounded him and at the instigation of Prabhu Dayal who was armed with his licensed gun, the remaining appellants had assaulted him with banka and lathis. On the alarm raised by Sushil Kumar and his grand father Ram Bilas PVV 1 a number of persons including Ram Pal PW 3 were attracted to the scene of occurrence and on their intervention the appellants after causing injuries to Sushil Kumar made good their escape. On the alarm raised by Sushil Kumar and his grand father Ram Bilas PVV 1 a number of persons including Ram Pal PW 3 were attracted to the scene of occurrence and on their intervention the appellants after causing injuries to Sushil Kumar made good their escape. After the occurrence Sushil Kumar was taken to the Police Station, Misrikh by his grandfather Ram Bilas PW 1 who handed over the written report of the occurrence to the head-constable whereupon the head constable prepared the chick report and he also registered a case u/Sec. 147/148/149/323/324 IPC against the appellants. Sushil Kumar injured was then sent to P. S. Misrikh where his injuries were examined at 7.20 P.M. the same day by Dr. C. Prakash. The doctor found the following injuries on his person :- 1.An incised wound on the front of right side and fore head 2 1/4" x 1" x skin 1" above the eye brow 3/4 from mid line. 2.An incised on the detral side ot Rt. side of head 1 1/2" x 1/4 scalp deep 3" from injury no. 1. 3.An incised wound on the Rt side of the scalp 4 1/2" from injury no. 1. 4.A contusion 2" x 1" on the outer part of Rt. leg 5" x 6" below knee joint. 5.A contusion 1" x 1/2" on the front part of left ulna joint. 6.A contusion 2" x 1J2" on the outer part of Rt. thigh 6" above the knee-joint. 7.A contusion 1 1/2 x 1/2" on the outerpart, right thigh, 7 inches above the right knee joint. 8.A contusion on the back of It. side of shoulder joint, size 2" x 1". 9.A contusion 3" x 1" on* the back part of Lt. from 3" above the It. elbow. 10.A contusion 1 1/2" x 1" on the back of Lt. fore arm, 3 1/2" above the wrist joint. 11.Contusion 1" x 1" on the back part of the Lt. hand one inch below the wrist joint. 12.A abraded contusion 5 1/2" x 1" on the back and inner part of Rt fore arm just above the wrist joint. (Rt.) 13.A contusion 1" x 1" on the back point of Rt. hand 1 1/2" below the wrist. 5. The S. I. of Police Station Misrikh started investigation in the case. hand one inch below the wrist joint. 12.A abraded contusion 5 1/2" x 1" on the back and inner part of Rt fore arm just above the wrist joint. (Rt.) 13.A contusion 1" x 1" on the back point of Rt. hand 1 1/2" below the wrist. 5. The S. I. of Police Station Misrikh started investigation in the case. However, during investigation complainant filed a complaint against all the appellants u/Sec. 147/138/323/324/307 IPC in the court of the learned magistrate who started enquiry in the case after summoning all the appellants, under the aforementioned sections of the Indian Penal Code mentioned in the complaint 6. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation submitted the charge sheet on 5-3-79 only against Bramdeen and Bankey Lal appellants u/Sec. 323/324 IPC. Further the learned Magistrate after completing the enquiry in the aforesaid complaint committed the appellants to the Court of Sessions on 18-12-80 u/Sec. 147/148/324/323/307 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against them and pleaded that they were falsely implicated on account of enmity. However, they did not examine any witness in their defence. 7. In support of the prosecution case, Ram Bilas PW 1, Sushil Kumar PW 2 and Ram Pal PW 3 were examined as eye witnesses of the occurrence. As the injury report Ex. Ka-7 of Sushil Kumar was admitted by the Learned counsel for the appellants. u/Sec. 294 CrPC the prosecution did not examine Dr. C. Prakash. Likewise the Chik report Ex. Ka 3, site plan Ex Ka 4 prepared by the Investigating Officer and the General Diary Entry No. 357 Ex Ka 5 regarding the registration of the case against the appellants were admitted by the learned counsel. The Head constable who had prepared the Chick report and the S. I. who had investigated the case were not examined by the prosecution and their examination were dispensed with by the Court. 8. The Head constable who had prepared the Chick report and the S. I. who had investigated the case were not examined by the prosecution and their examination were dispensed with by the Court. 8. Ram Bilas had narrated the occurrence in detail and disposed that at about 4.30 P.M. while his grand son Sushil Kumar PW 2 came out from his house situated in village Amramau of the Police Station, Misrikh, Sitapur, all the appellants had surrounded him and on the instigation of Prabhu Dayal who was armed with his licenced gun, the remaining appellants started assaulting Sushil Kumar with their respective weapons, Brahmadeen and Bankey Lal were armed with Banka whereas the remaining appellants except Prabhu Dayal had lathies with them. It was further stated by him that on the alarm raised by him and Sushil Kumar, a number of persons including Rampal PW 3 were attracted to the scene of occurrence and on their intervention, the appellants left Sushil Kumar in an injured state and made good their escape from the place of occurrence. He further deposed that after 'the occurrence he took Sushil Kumar injured to the Police Station Misrikh and there he banded over his report of the occurrence to the Head constable. He further stated that thereafter Sushil Kumar injured was sent to P.H.C. Misrikh through RAMpal, Home guard for medical examination to the Police Station and there the injuries of Sushil Kumar were examined by the Doctor He further stated that not satisfied with the police investigation he had filed a complaint against all the appellants whereupon all the appellant were committed to the Court of Sessions. ' The evidence of Ram Bilas is quite convincing and it is also corroborated by the evidence of Sushil Kumar injured and Rampal PW 3. I have very carefully gone through the evidence of Ram Bilas and I do not find any infirmity to discredit his testimony. He is also a natural witness as the occurrence had taken place just outside his' house. The evidence of Sushil Kumar, PW 2 is also trust worthy. He had received 12 injuries on his body and out of them 3 were incised wounds on his person and the remaining were contusions 9. The injuries found on the person of Sushil Kumar also fully corroborate the prosecution version of the occurrence. 10. Ram Pal PW 3 is also a reliable witness. He had received 12 injuries on his body and out of them 3 were incised wounds on his person and the remaining were contusions 9. The injuries found on the person of Sushil Kumar also fully corroborate the prosecution version of the occurrence. 10. Ram Pal PW 3 is also a reliable witness. The defence has not brought about any material on the record in the cross-examination of the witness to discredit his testimony. The FIR in this case was also lodged very promtely i.e. within two hours of the occurrence, the police station being situated at a distance of about 5 miles from the place of occurrence. I am in complete agreement with the findings of guilt arrived at by the trial court against the appellants. The prosecution has thus fully succeeded in proving its case against all the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. Under the circumstance, the conviction of the appellants under section 308/149, 308, 148, 147 IPC as recorded by the Court below is affirmed. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that services of Prabhu Dayal appellant who was serving as teacher were terminated by Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari on the basis of his conviction in the aforesaid case. Consequent to the aforesaid termination order, the appellant Prabhu Dayal challenged the said order by means of a writ petition (writ petition No. 4340 of 1984, Prabhu Dayal Tripathi v. Ziia Basic Shiksha Adhikari and others) in the High Court. The High Court in consideration of the aforesaid writ petition, set aside the order of Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari by means of an order and judgment dated 28-8-1984 passed in the aforesaid writ petition no. 4304/84. To support his contention, the learned counsel has placed a copy of the aforesaid order before me and a perusal of which indicates that termination of petitioner's services with effect from 13-5 1983 was set aside and he was deemed to be in service till 11-5-1984 i.e. the date when the order of removal of the petitioner from the services was passed. It was also observed in the aforesaid order of this Court that if the appellant ultimately succeeds in the appeal in hand, his case for reinstatement in services shall be considered by the authorites concerned. 12. It was also observed in the aforesaid order of this Court that if the appellant ultimately succeeds in the appeal in hand, his case for reinstatement in services shall be considered by the authorites concerned. 12. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that out of the appellants, Prabhu Dayal, Sri Krishna, Mahendra and Daya Shanker are also employed in different capacity in some or the other Government Department. Individually speaking, Prabhu Dayal was employed as Teacher. Sri Krishna alias Raja Babu was working as Gram Vikas Adhikari, whereas Mahendra was serving as Principle in Gola Vidya Mandir, Kheir whereas Daya Shanker was serving as Teacher in Bharat Inter College Misrik Sitapur. IT is next submitted by the learned counsel that except Prabhu Dayal all the appellants are working as usual in different capacity and is apprehended by the learned counsel that if the conviction is maintained against the appellants, they would be victimised making the conviction a ground for termination of their services. IT is also submitted that if the Honourable Court is of the firm view to maintain conviction against the appellants, the appellants may be extended the benefit of probation of First Offender's Act inasmuch as the appellants are not previous convicts and in this way, the appellants shall be able to reform and rehabilititate themselves in the society. IT is next submitted by the learned counsel that along with the directions extending the benefit of the probation of First Offender's Act, a direction not to victimise the appellants forming the conviction as basis for termination of their services, be also issued. The above contention of the learned counsel is louded with some substance and the appellants deserve to be extended the benefits under probation of First Offender's Act, the next contention that a direction not to victimise the appellants in so far as their services are concerned, be also issued, also carries conviction with me inasmuch as that a person who has been extended the benefit under Probation of First Offender's Act must not be victimised monetarily. If he is deprived of the very means of the livelhood, it would be too difficult for him to rehabilitate himself in the society and also to sustain himself and his family. If he is deprived of the very means of the livelhood, it would be too difficult for him to rehabilitate himself in the society and also to sustain himself and his family. With this end in view, I purpose to extend the benefit of probation of First Offender's Act to the appellants Prabhu Dayal Sri Krishna, Mahendra and Daya Shanker. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellants under section 147, 308/149. 148 IPC is affirmed. However, upon a consideration of the facts and circumstances as propounded above, the appellants Prabhu Dayal, Sri Krishna, Mahendra and Daya Shanker are extended the benefits under the probation of First Offender's Act under section 4 of the aforesaid Act 1, 1939. In so far as remaining appellants namely, Brahmadeen, Bankey Lal, Arjun Lal, Ram Swarup, Akhilesh are concerned, the sentences of imprisonment as recorded against the appellants are reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. The appellants are further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 1000/- each which they shall deposit in the Court of C.J.M. Sitapur within 4 months from the date of the receipt of the judgment in the Court below. In case of their failure to pay the fine, the appellants shall undergo R. I. for 3 months. As stated above, appellants Prabhu Dayal, Sri Krishna, Mahendra and Daya Shanker have been placed on probation under First Offenders' Act for a period of one year during which they shall be of good conduct. They are directed to execute a personal bond in the amount of Rs. 2000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satifaction of C.J.M. Sitapur. In addition to the above the aforesaid appellants, namely, Prabhu Dayal Sri Krishna, Mahendra and Daya Shanker are directed to pay Rs. 1000/- each as compensation which they shall deposit in the Court of C.J M. Sitapur for being disbursed to. the victim Sushil Khmar. In the event the appellants who have been placed on probation for good conduct for a period of one year, fail to deposit the amount of compensation as directed, the C.J.M. shall be at liberty to employ such coercive measures as he may deem proper to realise the amount of compensation for the appellants aforesaid. The C.J.M. Sitapur, out of the amount which works out to Rs. The C.J.M. Sitapur, out of the amount which works out to Rs. 9000/- shall ensure that a sum of Rs. 7000/- is disbursed to the victim Sushil Kumar and the remaining sum of Rs. 2000/- shall go to the State exchequer. 13. In view of the contention of the learned counsel that once the appellants who are emplopees and who have been placed on probation of First Offender's Act cannot be victimised and cannot be deprived of the sole means of their livelihood as to facilitate their reformation and rehabilitation in the society, by their authorities concerned. I am in full agreement with this contention of the learned counsel. As observed in my different pronouncement earlier, the very object and purpose of extending the benefit of First Offender's Act is to rehabilitate and reform the Offenders and I feel that if they are victimised forming their conviction the basis of depriving them of their means of livelihood, the very object and purpose of the Probation of First Offenders Act would be defeated. IN this view of the matter, I direct that the appellants namely Prabhu Dayal, Sri Krishna alias Raja Babu, Mahendra and Daya Shanker who have been placed on probation for good conduct, shall not be victimised on the ground that they have been convicted in the aforesaid court. 14. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgement to the Court below for compliance within 15 days from today. Appeal partly allowed.