JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate for the State were heard and material available on record has been perused. 2. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the conviction of the revisionists in criminal case No. 1075 of 2000 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. V, Unnao dated 24.8.2001 whereby the revisionists were convicted for the offence under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 326/34 and 504 IPC. Following sentences were imposed on the revisionist. Section 326/34 IPC - two years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. Section 323/34 IPC - one year’s imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each. Section 324/34 IPC - one year’s imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each. Section 504 IPC - Fine of Rs. 500/- each. In case of default of payment of fine, the revisionists were directed to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 3. Said conviction was challenged in criminal appeal No. 42 of 2001 and Sessions Judge, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2001 vide his judgment dated 27.11.2001 dismissed the appeal, hence the instant revision. 4. Only submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that in this case grievous injury which was alleged to be sustained by the injured was not the result of any deadly weapon or sharp edged weapon, particularly knife as alleged in the instant case. Such injury (injury No. 9) was caused by hard and blunt object and therefore, the revisionists were wrongly convicted for the offence under Section 326/34 IPC. Further submission would be that all the other injuries sustained by the injured were simple in nature. 5. It is further submitted that four persons were convicted by the trial Court out of which Kishan Pal and Rakesh have already expired during the pendency of instant revision. Accordingly, the revision stands abated, so far as it relates to the deceased revisionists. 6. Further submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the occurrence of this case pertains to the year 1999. During this long period of about 25 years, much water has flown and parties have come to terms. Since Section 326 IPC is not compoundable therefore, the same could not be materialised. 6. Further submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the occurrence of this case pertains to the year 1999. During this long period of about 25 years, much water has flown and parties have come to terms. Since Section 326 IPC is not compoundable therefore, the same could not be materialised. His only submission is that the offence under Section 326 IPC was not technically established, therefore, the revisionists may be acquitted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be extended to them. It is submitted that the revisionists have no criminal antecedents and no previous conviction has been proved against them. 7. Learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned judgments. 8. In brief the facts of the case are that the son of complainant was a milk seller. Both the parties lives in the same village. On 2.8.1999 in the night, when the complainant Kanhai and his son Omkar were lying on cot, infront of their house then all the four revisionists reached there. Revisionist Ashok was armed with knife and others were armed with Lathi. Due to the incident which had taken place in the last evening, the accused persons started hurling abuses on Omkar and caused him injuries. Hearing the noise, several persons assembled there and accused persons ran away. 9. Both the parties were carrying on the business of milk. The incident of this case is alleged to have taken place in the intervening night of 2/3.8.1999 in the mid night and First Information Report was lodged promptly. As per the injury report, following injuries were found on the body of injured Omkar: (i) Traumatic swelling 3 cm x ½ cm on the left side of back, 9 cm above from left ear. (ii) Red colour abrasion 5 cm x ½ cm on the back of left side of head 6 cm above from left ear. (iii) Red colour abrasion 13 cm x ½ cm on the left chest 14 cm away from left axilla. (iv) Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x skin deep on the back of left neck, 8 cm below from left ear. Margins clean and edges everted. Oozing of blood was present. (v) Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the middle and upper right arm, 11 cm above from right shoulder joint. (iv) Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x skin deep on the back of left neck, 8 cm below from left ear. Margins clean and edges everted. Oozing of blood was present. (v) Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the middle and upper right arm, 11 cm above from right shoulder joint. Margins clean cut and edges everted. Oozing of blood was present. (vi) Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x skin deep on the left upper edge and middle side of left collar bone. Margins clean cut and edges everted. Oozing of blood was present. (vii) Red colour abrasion 9 cm x 0.5 cm on the front of right medial collar bone and right upper edges. (viii) right colour contusion signs 3.5 cm x 2 cm on the middle of nose. (ix) lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm (complete bone of finger has been cut) present lower and medial side of finger. Oozing of blood was present. Finger was partially attached. Injury was kept under observation and referred to District Hospital, Unnao for x-ray of right hand. 10. In the opinion of the doctor, injury Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 were caused by hard and blunt object, injury No. 4, 5, 6 were caused by sharp edged weapon, injury Nos. 1 to 8 were simple in nature. No opinion was expressed regarding injury No. 9 as the injury was referred for x-ray. It is pertinent to mention here that no supplementary report was on record nor prosecution has proved it. 11. During trial, P.W. 3 Dr. R.K. Chaudhary was examined, who has stated that in case injury is caused by knife then it would not result in lacerated wound, it will cause incised wound. The lacerated wound would be caused by Lathi blow. He has further stated that due to injury, the bone was broken. Unless and until there was fracture in the bone, the finger cannot hang. So in his evidence, during trial, the doctor has specifically mentioned that this injury was result of a blow of blunt object and was not caused by sharp edged weapon. Prosecution has failed to establish that this injury, which was the only grievous injury injury was the result of knife blow. 12. In this case out of four persons, three were armed with Lathis. Prosecution has failed to establish that this injury, which was the only grievous injury injury was the result of knife blow. 12. In this case out of four persons, three were armed with Lathis. Therefore, it must difficult for the person having knife to use the same and cause injuries, because knife has a small handle and the persons using lathis must be hurling lathis from some distance. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionists has force that offence under Section 326 IPC was not made out. 13. Section 326 IPC reads as under: “Section 326 IPC. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 14. A perusal of aforesaid section makes it obligatory on the prosecution to prove that grievous injury was caused by any instrument for shooting or cutting or any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause such injury or by any heated substance or by means of any poison or corrosive substance. But as discussed earlier, grevious injury was not the result of knife blow. 15. In view of the evidence of the doctor the said injury was the result of lathi blow. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the conviction of the revisionists under Section 326/34 IPC was not sustainable and revisionist deserves to be acquitted for the said charge. However, conviction under remaining sections does not suffer from any illegality. 16. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the conviction of the revisionists under Section 326/34 IPC was not sustainable and revisionist deserves to be acquitted for the said charge. However, conviction under remaining sections does not suffer from any illegality. 16. Keeping in view the fact that occurrence of this case has become about 25 years old, therefore, after such a long lapse of time it would not be feasible to send the revisionists to jail to serve out their sentence. It is true that injured Omkar has sustained injuries but he can be compensated by awarding compensation. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion this revision deserves to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed. 18. Conviction of the revisionists under Section 326/34 IPC is hereby set aside. However, the conviction of revisionist for other offences is hereby confirmed. But instead of sending them to jail to serve out their sentences, the revisionists shall be released on their executing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of two years. During this period they shall remain under the supervision of concerned District Probation Officer. During this period they shall not indulge in any type of criminal activity. 19. Bonds, as directed above, shall be filed within one month form today. In case of any default in filing the bonds within the stipulated time or after filing the bonds, in case of violation of any of the condition, the revisionists shall be called upon by the Court concerned and appropriate sentence shall be inflicted on them. Both the surviving revisionists shall deposit Rs. 5,000/- each within one month from today which shall be paid to the injured Omkar as compensation. During this period of one month, revisionists shall remain on the same bail. 20. The payment of compensation amount shall be a condition precedent for filing the bonds as indicated above. —————