Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. By this common judgment, I intend to dispose of Criminal Revision No. 1685 of.2004 Sat Parkash V/s. State of Haryana as well as Criminal Revision No. 2311 of 2004 Hukam Chand V/s. State of Haryana. 2. The petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 1685 of 2004 were tried by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra with the allegations that on 12-6-1993 at about 6.00 p.m. they along with three others caused injuries to Hukam Chand. Vide judgment dated 15-2-2000, the trial Court held accused Pawan Kumar, Ram Saroop and Jai Parkash guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Section 323, IPC read with Section 34, IPC. The said accused were, thereafter, ordered to be released on probation for a period of six months. Sat Parkash petitioner was held guilty under Section 326, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 . Sat Parkash was also convicted under Section 324, IPC and awarded RI for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 . Similarly, Raj Kumar, Satish Kumar and Suresh Kumar were convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each. Satish Kumar was also convicted under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250.00 . All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Against their conviction and sentences, the petitioners filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions. Vide judgment dated 23-7-2004, the Additional Sessions Judge (ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra altered he conviction of Sat Parkash under Section 326, IPC to one under Section 324, IPC. However, no separate sentence was awarded under the altered section as the said petitioner already stood convicted and sentenced under Section 324, IPC. Conviction and sentences of the remaining petitioners, as ordered by the trial Court were upheld and so also of Sat Parkash petitioner under Section 324,IPC. 4. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners have filed the present revision in this Court against their conviction and sentences. The same came up for hearing on 2-9-2004 when notice of motion was issued for 6-12-2004. On the latter date, the revision was admitted and the petitioners were released on bail. 5. 4. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners have filed the present revision in this Court against their conviction and sentences. The same came up for hearing on 2-9-2004 when notice of motion was issued for 6-12-2004. On the latter date, the revision was admitted and the petitioners were released on bail. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the medical evidence was contrary to the ocular account. Moreover, the injuries were received by the accused which have not been explained by the prosecution. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioners now stand convicted under Sections 325, 324 and 323 IPC and they have been facing the agony of trial and appeal since the year 1993. None of the petitioners is a previous convict arid there was nothing against their antecedents and character, which could disentitle them for being granted the benefit of probation. 6. Learned Counsel for the State and the complainant have submitted in unison that. the medical evidence, instead of being contrary to the ocular account, fully corroborated the same. The guilt of the accused had been proved by way of reliable evidence brought on the record. Therefore, the petitioners do not deserve any relief and the revision should be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the judgments passed by the lower Courts and banned the evidence with the help of the counsel for the parties. 8. Testimony of Hukam Chand P.W. 1, who had received injuries at the hands of the petitioners and three others, reveals that on 12-6-1993, when he reached near the field of Babu Ram, he was accosted by the accused, who were armed with Gandasi, Jailies, Bhala and lathies. Sat Parkash gave a Gandasi blow on his head. Satish Kumar gave jaili blow on his right ear, Raj Kumar accused, who was carrying a Gandasi, gave a blow with the same on the right leg of Hukam Chand. Suresh Kumar was holding a Bhala, which he used in giving an injury on the right eye. Similarly, Pawan Kumar, Ram Saroop and Jai Parkash also inflicted injuries to Hukam Chand. Alarm raised by injured Hukam Chand attracted his sons Shiv Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Ganga Ram, who rescued him from the clutches of the accused. Shiv Kumar has been examined by the prosecution as P.W. 5. He also corroborated the statement of Hukam Chand. Dr. Similarly, Pawan Kumar, Ram Saroop and Jai Parkash also inflicted injuries to Hukam Chand. Alarm raised by injured Hukam Chand attracted his sons Shiv Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Ganga Ram, who rescued him from the clutches of the accused. Shiv Kumar has been examined by the prosecution as P.W. 5. He also corroborated the statement of Hukam Chand. Dr. S.N. Bansal P.W. 2, deposed about the medico legal examination of Hukam Chand injured, conducted by him on 12-5-1993 at about 7.20 p.m. As per the MLR, nine injuries were found. Injuries No. 2 and 4 were caused by sharp edged weapon while Nos. 7 and 9 by blunt pointed weapon, whereas rest of the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. As per the supplementary note, injury No. 6 was also declared to be caused by a sharp edged weapon. The injuries were subjected to X-ray examination. Dr. O.P. Gogia P.W. 4 conducted the X-ray and as per the same, following fractures were noticed: 1. X-ray scalp AP and both lateral and x-ray orbit. Fracture (Depressed) lateral wall of the maxillary sinus of the right side and fracture of the maxillary sinus on the right side. 2. X-ray of the nasal bone : Fracture of the nasal bone. 3. X-ray left leg: Fracture of the tibia of the left leg. 9. There is no major contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular account. Moreover, the medical evidence cannot override the ocular account. The Court has to look to the testimony of the injured witness and if the same is found to be credible and reliable, it can be used for sustaining the conviction. 10. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the conviction of the petitioners. Accordingly, their conviction for the various offences are maintained. 11. Coming to the question of sentence, it may be noticed that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1993. Both the parties i.e. the accused and the complainant belong to the same village. With the passage of time, the things must have cool down. The ever hanging sword of conviction and sentence upon the heads of the petitioners must also have yielded result. There is. no material available to show that any of the petitioners have ever indulged in any crime during the last thirteen years. None of them is a previous convict. With the passage of time, the things must have cool down. The ever hanging sword of conviction and sentence upon the heads of the petitioners must also have yielded result. There is. no material available to show that any of the petitioners have ever indulged in any crime during the last thirteen years. None of them is a previous convict. They remained in jail for a considerable period of time. They were taken into custody on 23-7-2004 when their appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. They were, thereafter, ordered to be released on bail on 6-12-2004. Thus, it is clear that they remained in custody after dismissal of their appeal for a period of four months and thirteen days. Over and above the same, Sat Parkash and Satish Kumar remained in jail as under-trials for 29 days each while in the case of Raj Kumar, the said period was 21 days. Suresh Kumar petitioner remained in jail as an under-trial for six months and fourteen days. Custody certificates in this regard have been placed on the record. The trial Court, while convicting three co-accused of the petitioners, namely, Pawan Kumar, Ram Saroop and Jai Parkash, released them on probation and found that offence under Section 323, IPC was not a serious offence. In spite of conviction of the present petitioners under Sections 325, 324 and 323, IPC. they do not make themselves disentitled to the grant of benefit of probation. This Court feels that the petitioners deserve to be extended the benefit of probation instead of sending them back to the jail for undergoing the remaining sentences. However, while doing so, the Court may like to direct the petitioners to pay adequate compensation to Hukam Chand complainant. 12. In view of the above, the sentences imposed upon the petitioners are ordered to be set aside and instead they are ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year on the condition that they would maintain peace, harmony and be of good behaviour during the said period on their furnishing bonds in a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In case, they violate any condition of their release, they will be directed to receive the sentence earlier imposed upon them. 10,000.00 each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In case, they violate any condition of their release, they will be directed to receive the sentence earlier imposed upon them. The necessary probation bonds be furnished within a period of two months from today. 13. The fine already Imposed upon the petitioners by the trial Court as upheld by the Court of Sessions is converted to the one to be paid as compensation to the complainant/injured Hukam Chand as compensation. Besides the same, petitioners Raj Kumar, Satish Kumar and Suresh Kumar shall pay an additional amount of Rs. 10,000.00 each as compensation to complainant/injured Hukam Chand. Similarly, Sat Parkash petitioner shall pay Rs. 5,000.00 as compensation to the said complainant. 14. With the above modification in the nature of sentence, the present revision is disposed of. 15. In view of the aforementioned decision in the revision filed by the accused, Criminal Revision No. 2311 of 2004 filed by Hukam Chand complainant Is also disposed of.