Honble DALELA, J. – By the judgment dated 4.5.95, the learned Judge Special Court SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur convicted the accused respondent No.2 Sultan Singh for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and instead of awarding punishment at once he was released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on executing a bond for Rs. 2000/- with a surety of like amount for keeping peace and good conduct for a period of two years. Against this judgment, this revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner the injured complainant. (2). I have heard the arguments of both the sides. (3). It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant petitioner had sustained head injury at the hands of the respondent No.2. Therefore, he should be awarded some compensation under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. According to the learned counsel the learned trial court has committed an error in not awarding the compensation to the injured petitioner while releasing the accused-respon dent No.2 under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. (4). In the case of Delhi Domestic Working Womens Forum vs. Union of India & Ors. (1), the Supreme Court has stressed the need for victim oriented attitude and favoured the shift in penological thinking, reflecting the growing importance attached to restitution and reparation over the more narrowly retributive aims of conventional punishment. The victim oriented penological principles can be given effect by ordering the payment of compensation to the victim. This has been done by the Apex Court in the case of Sarup Singh vs. State of Haryana (2), though that case was related to the offence under section 304 Part II I.P.C. (5). From the judgment of the trial court, it is evident that the petitioner-complainant sustained injury at the hands of the accused-respondent No.2 on his head. From the judgment it is also evident that the head injury sustained by the petitioner injured was not a superficial one. Therefore, taking into account this fact and over all circumstances of the case, I think that a compensation of should be awarded to the petitioner injured under Section 5 of the Probation of Offender Act. I think that a comensation of Rs. one thousand would be proper and adequate in the matter. (6). No other point has been argued and pressed before me. (7). I think that a comensation of Rs. one thousand would be proper and adequate in the matter. (6). No other point has been argued and pressed before me. (7). In the result, the conviction of the accused-respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. is maintained and upheld. The trial courts order for releasing the accused- respondent No.2 on probation of good conduct under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is also upheld and maintained, but the accused-respondent No.2 is hereby directed under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act that he shall pay a compensation of rupees one thousand to the petitioner injured. To this extent the judgment & order of the learned trial court shall stand modified. (8). The petitioner is disposed off accordingly.