Judgment MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated July 16, 1980 convicting. the accused-appellant Sodan Singh under section 323, I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. ( 2 ) ON April 14, 1980, the deceased Mangu was sleeping on a cot in the Pol of his house. His sister Mst. Rukamani P. W. 2 and niece Chandi P. W. 3 were doing domestic work. The accused appellant Sodan Singh Rajput came there on the bicycle of Prabhu Khatik. Prabhu Khatik remained standing at the entrance of the Pci. There had been money dealings in between the deceased Mangu and the accused Sodan Singh. He asked Mangu for the discharge of his debt. An altercation followed in between them, soon they were embroiled in a scuffle, in the course, Sodan Singh gave a forceful push to the deceased Mangu and he fell down first on the cot and then on the ground. As a result thereof, he received injuries and the same day he died. On post mortem examination of his dead body, it was revealed that his spleen was highly enlarged and it was ruptured in the said occurrence and as a result thereof he died. Four external ante mortem injuries were noted on his left arm, lateral part of his knee, left leg and left hip. Report Ex.-P/4 was lodged the same day by one Prema. The Police registered a case under section 302, I. P. C. and commenced investigation. The next day, the accused was arrested. After investigation, challan was filed against the accused- appellant under section 302, I. P. C. He was tried by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and produced and proved nine documents. In his statements recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. the accused-appellant admits that he had lent money to the deceased Mangu, Rs. After investigation, challan was filed against the accused- appellant under section 302, I. P. C. He was tried by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and produced and proved nine documents. In his statements recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. the accused-appellant admits that he had lent money to the deceased Mangu, Rs. 311/were paid on his behalf, receipt EX.-2 was executed and issued by him, on the day of occurrence, he went to the house of the deceased Mangu, in the course of scuffle which followed the altercation in between them, he pushed the deceased Mangu and as a result thereof Mangu fell down, first on the cot and then on the ground. He has further stated that the deceased Mangu himself called him to come inside the Pol, thereafter, Mangu and his sister started rallying at him and got him embroiled in the scuffle, thereafter, he came out from the Pol. He examined Harlal D. W.-1 in his defence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Addi. Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant under section 323, I. P. C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default ofpayment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. ( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that a part of the statement of the accused-appellant cannot be read in evidence. He further contends that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and it is well-proved from it that the deceased himself invited the accused-appellant to come inside the Pci and he was beaten there by the deceased Mangu and his sister Rukamani. He further contends that in exercise of the right of private defence, he pushed aside the deceased Mangu and as a result thereof he fell down, first on the cot and then on the ground, he (accused) was not aware that the spleen of the deceased was enlarged and as such no offence is made out against him. He further contends that in exercise of the right of private defence, he pushed aside the deceased Mangu and as a result thereof he fell down, first on the cot and then on the ground, he (accused) was not aware that the spleen of the deceased was enlarged and as such no offence is made out against him. He also contends that it is clear from the judgment dated 16-07-1991 of the trial Court that at the time the accused-appellant was 70 years old, now he is over 80 years old, he has already been in police and judicial custody for more than one month and eight days and, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused-appellant deserves to be released on the sentence already undergone and in the alternative, he may be given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act as no useful purpose will be served by sending the accused-appellant to prison after more than eleven years of the occurrence. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor duly supported the judgment under appeal. He contends that as a result of the action of the accused appellant, the deceased Mangu lost his life. He further contends that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused-appellant is not entitled to be released on the sentence already undergone or to get the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act ( 5 ) IT is well proved from the statements of the deceaseds sister Rukamani P. W. 2, his niece Chandi P. W. 3, Mangu P. W. 1 and Mst. Dhapo P. W. 4 that the accused-appellant had money dealings with the deceased Mangu and he demanded his amount which was outstanding against the deceased. These facts are duly admitted by the accused-appellant in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. It has been held in Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar;, that a part of the statement of an accused person may be read in evidence. It is further well proved from the statements of the aforesaid witnesses that the accused-appellant gave beating to the deceased Mangu. This is duly corroborated by the statement of Dr. G. K. Mishra, P. W. 8. He has specifically stated on oath that on the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Mangu, he found four simple ante mortem injuries on his body. This is duly corroborated by the statement of Dr. G. K. Mishra, P. W. 8. He has specifically stated on oath that on the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Mangu, he found four simple ante mortem injuries on his body. As already observed above, the accused himself admits to have given a push to the deceased and as a result thereof, he fell down, first on the cot and then on the ground. ( 6 ) THERE is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the accused-appellant pushed the deceased and caused injuries to him in exercise of his right of private defence. It was not suggested to any prosecution witness that the deceased also inflicted injuries upon the accused-appellant. Admittedly, the accused-appellant did not file any injury report. ( 7 ) FROM the prosecution evidence, it is well proved that the deceased Mangu died on account of the injuries caused by the accused-appellant. Dr. G. K. Mishra, P. W. 8 has categorically stated on oath that on the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, he found his spleen very much enlarged and he died as a result on the rupture of the enlarged spleen. The trial Court has relied upon Banta Singh v. State;, Jawaning v. State;, Bhurilal v. State, Karimkhan v. State; and State v. Babar Ali;. It has rightly convicted the accused-appellant under section 323, I. P. C. There exists no good ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial court. ( 8 ) IT is the admitted case of the parties that the accused-appellant was 70 years old when the occurrence took place in April, 1980. A note is given in the warrant of commitment, paper No. A57, that the accused has been in police and judicial custody from 15-04-1980 to 23-05-1980. More than eleven years have passed. No useful purpose will be served in sending back the accused-appellant to prison. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment dated August 26, 1987 given in Banwaria v. State of Rajasthan; wherein the accused-appellant was convicted under section 304 Pt. II, I. P. C. and was released on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 2,000/- and a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for two years. II, I. P. C. and was released on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 2,000/- and a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for two years. He also relied upon Durga v, State of Rajasthan;8 in which the conviction was converted from section 304, I. P. C. to 325, I. P. C. and benefit of probation under section 360, Cr. P. C. was given. ( 9 ) UNDER the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused-appellant is entitled to get the benefit of probation under section 360, Cr. P. c. and also under section 4, Probation of Offenders Act. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is partly allo)led. The conviction of the appellant under section 323, i. P. C. is maintained. The accused appellant is given the benefit of probation under section 4, probation of Offenders Act. He is released on his entering a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, bhilwara to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. ( 11 ) IT is further ordered under section 5, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 that the accused-appellant will pay Rs. 2,500/- as compensation to the widow of the deceased Mangu, and if she is not alive, to his sons and daughters in equal proportions. The accused-appellant is given two months time to furnish the bail bonds and to deposit the said amount of compensation in the Court of Addi. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara who will accordingly make payment, within two months of the deposit of the amount. A copy of this judgment will be sent to Rukamani Bai, P. W. 2. Appeal partly allowed.