JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment against the judgment dated 25.7.2001 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Behror in Criminal Appeal No. 64/1999 affirming the order dated 12.10.1999 of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behror whereby the present petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 332 Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to two years S.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergone month's imprisonment. 2. The short facts of the case are that the complainant D.N. Singh lodged a written report on 14.2.1997 at Police Station Behror stating therein that he is an employee at Telephone Exchange Jakhrana. At around 2.30 P.M. he was going back after having tea at Parsia. On the way, the present petitioner abused him and started beating. Thereafter, the complainant reached to the Exchange. When he was sitting there, the present petitioner again arrived at the Exchange and he hit him. The complainant received injuries and the present petitioner had threatened him of dire consequences. On this report, a case has been registered under Sections 332 and 353 Indian Penal Code After investigation, challan was filed against the present petitioner for the above offences. The trial Court framed charge against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 332 Indian Penal Code Five witnesses have been examined in support of prosecution case. The accused was examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code Two witnesses DW-1 Rohtas and DW-2 Satish Kumar have been examined in defence. 3. After conclusion of the trial, the present petitioner has been convicted as above and the appeal has been dismissed, hence this revision petition. 4. The contention of the present petitioner is that the Courts below have not appreciated the nature of the offence under Section 332 Indian Penal Code There is no allegation in the F.I.R. and in the statement of the complainant that he was discharging any public duty or with the intention to prevent him from discharging his duty, act has been done by the present petitioner. 5. Prosecution witnesses have not corroborated the prosecution story. No motive has been attributed to the present petitioner. Hence the conviction is bad in law. 6. 5. Prosecution witnesses have not corroborated the prosecution story. No motive has been attributed to the present petitioner. Hence the conviction is bad in law. 6. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the complainant has stated specifically regarding the incident and the statement of the complainant has been further corroborated by the medical evidence. There is no need to reveal any motive. The present petitioner at the time of incident was in the Telephone Exchange and he has been rightly convicted under Section 332, I.P.C. 7. PW-4 Dhirendra Nath Singh has stated that when he was going from the market after having tea, the present petitioner has assaulted him and again when he was sitting in Telephone Exchange, he has been beaten by the present petitioner. Nothing has been stated in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the complainant that at the relevant time, the present petitioner was discharging any public duty or to prevent or deter him from discharging the duty, he has been assaulted and in absence of this allegation, the conviction under Section 332 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. PW-4 Dhirendra Nath Singh has stated that he has been beaten by the present petitioner and his statement has been further corroborated by the evidence of PW-3 Dr. Hari Singh Yadav. The complainant received four injuries. It is true that duration of three injuries has not been stated in the injury report Ex.P-2 but duration of injury No. 4 has been stated which relates to the time of incident. 8. It has been stated that no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution but it will not adversely prejudice the case of the prosecution as there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-4 Dhirendra Nath Singh which has been further corroborated by medical evidence and the Investigating Officer has also fortified the incident. 9. The defence witnesses could not rebut the prosecution story. 9. The defence witnesses could not rebut the prosecution story. The only contention of the defence witnesses is that the complainant received the injuries due to fall as he was in drinken stage but nothing has been suggested to the complainant in this regard in his cross-examination and the doctor has also opined that in a single fall, all these injuries could not be sustained and hence it is proved by the evidence of the prosecution that the present petitioner has voluntarily caused the simple injuries to the complainant and looking at the above, the conviction of the present petitioner for the offence under Section 332 Indian Penal Code is converted to Section 323 Indian Penal Code Taking note of the fact that the incident is of year 1997 and the nature of offence, the present petitioner should be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 10. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed and it is ordered that instead of sentencing the present petitioner at once to any punishment, the present petitioner should be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of Rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the aforesaid period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.Revision partly allowed. *******