JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 15.12.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2010, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.01.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 24-11-2008/07, whereby the petitioner (in short’ accused’) was convicted under Sections 325, 341, 504, 506 of IPC and sentenced as under:- Conviction under Section Sentence of substantive imprisonment Amount of fine imposed Sentence in default of payment of fine 325 IPC RI for a period of 2 years Rs. 1000/- SI for a period of 3 months 341 IPC SI for a period of 1 month 504 IPC SI for a period of 6 months Rs.500/- SI for a period of 2 months 506 IPC SI for a period of 6 months Rs.500/- SI for a period of 2 months 2. Briefly stated facts as emerged from the record are that on 7.9.2007 at about 8:05 p.m., after receiving telephonic information from one Nikka Ram, resident of Karha, at Police Post Deotsidh to the effect that one Manoj Kumar has given beatings to Hans Raj, police came to the spot of occurrence. Accordingly, Investigating Officer HC Rajesh Kumar entered Rapat Ext. PW9/A and visited the place Bijhar where he recorded the statement of complainant Hans Raj Ext. PW1/A. Complainant stated that at about 7:45 P.M., when he was to leave to his house after finishing the construction work, accused Manoj Kumar, resident of village Karha, came there and wrongfully restrained him from proceeding further and started hurling filthy abuses without rhyme and reason and when he asked him to resist from doing so, accused threatened to kill him. Complainant also stated that all of a sudden accused picked a stone and threw the same upon him, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his right leg. Complainant further stated that when he raised alarm, one Suram Singh and Baljit Singh came to spot and on seeing them, accused fled from the spot. Complainant specifically stated that while leaving the spot accused threatened him to do away with his life. In view of the statement of the complainant, police registered FIR Ex. Complainant further stated that when he raised alarm, one Suram Singh and Baljit Singh came to spot and on seeing them, accused fled from the spot. Complainant specifically stated that while leaving the spot accused threatened him to do away with his life. In view of the statement of the complainant, police registered FIR Ex. PW7/A. Investigating Officer, HC Rajesh Kumar (PW 9), after visiting the spot prepared site plan Ext. PW9/B. He also took possession of stone Ex.PW2/A by sealing the same in a parcel with seal impressions, which is Ext. PX. Police also moved an application Ex.PW9/C and got complainant medically examined and procured MLC Ext. PW8/1. 3. Police after completion of investigation came to the conclusion that accused is guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 325, 341, 504 and 506 and as such presented challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class taking cognizance of the averments contained in the challan as well as documents annexed therewith, charged accused with the offences punishable under Sections 325, 341, 504 and 506 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution as well as statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., held accused guilty of having committed offence under Sections 325, 341, 504 and 506 IPC and accordingly convicted/sentenced him as per detail given hereinabove. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on 30.1.2010, accused filed appeal under Section 374 Cr. P.C., before the learned Sessions Judge, District Hamirpur, H.P., which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2010. Learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, after perusing the records made available, acquitted accused of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 506 and held him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 504 IPC. However, learned Appellate Court also keeping in view the evidence adduced on record, reduced the sentence of the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC from 2 years to 6 months and under Section 504 of IPC from 6 months to 2 months. Hence, the instant criminal revision petition before this Court. 6. Mr. However, learned Appellate Court also keeping in view the evidence adduced on record, reduced the sentence of the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC from 2 years to 6 months and under Section 504 of IPC from 6 months to 2 months. Hence, the instant criminal revision petition before this Court. 6. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, counsel representing the petitioner-accused vehemently argued that impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offences under Section 325 and 304 IPC is not sustainable as the same are not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. Mr. Chitkara contended that bare perusal of impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below suggests that same are against the law, facts and the admissible evidence on record of the case and, as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Anoop Chitkara with a view to demonstrate that both the Courts below have fallen in grave error while reading the evidence, invited the attention of the Court to the statements of the prosecution witnesses. As per Mr. Chitkara, prosecution witnesses instead of rendering corroboration to the statements of each other have rather contradicted each other on material particulars and learned Courts below could not brush aside the such contradictions terming them as discrepancies and forgetfulness due to lapse of time. Mr. Chitkara forcefully contended that there are major discrepancies and contradictions in the FIR and the statements on oath, and the statements of witnesses which go to the root of the case. Mr. Chitkara strenuously argued that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and credible evidence. Rather careful perusal of the nature of evidence tendered by the prosecution clearly suggests that there was no scope to convict the petitioner. Apart from above, Mr. Chitkara stated that statements of prosecution witnesses with respect to incident could not be relied upon, particularly, when witnesses examined by the prosecution were highly interested witnesses. As per Mr. Chitkara, all the prosecution witnesses were interested in the success of the case set up by the prosecution, as such, no reliance could be placed on the same by the Courts below while holding petitioner-accused guilty under Sections 325 and 504 of IPC. Mr. As per Mr. Chitkara, all the prosecution witnesses were interested in the success of the case set up by the prosecution, as such, no reliance could be placed on the same by the Courts below while holding petitioner-accused guilty under Sections 325 and 504 of IPC. Mr. Chitkara solely with a view to demonstrate that prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence, made this Court to travel through the statements rendered by the prosecution witnesses. Mr. Chitkara forcefully contended that circumstances must lend support to the evidence of eye witnesses as a rule of prudence and caution and corroboration is required by some circumstances, which would lend assurance to the evidence and satisfy the conscience of the Court that accused was really connected with the commission of the alleged offence as held by learned trial Court in impugned judgment. Mr. Chitkara specifically invited the attention of this Court to the statement of PW3 Manjit Singh, wherein, he stated that accused and complainant were quarreling and during quarrel accused threw stone at complainant, whereas complainant threw sand on the accused, meaning thereby, there was provocation from the complainant and, as such, police had no occasion to register case against the present accused. While concluding his argument, Mr. Chitkara further contended that learned Courts below has failed to appreciate that the FIR and subsequent improvements were result of vindictiveness and is a result of padding and concoction. Mr. Chitkara, while praying that present revision petition may be allowed, stated that there are contradictions, embellishments and improvements in the statements of the material prosecution witnesses, which could go to show that occurrence had not taken place in the manner as has been reported by the prosecution and most of the evidence is false, frivolous and not based on the ground reality. 7. Mr. Chitkara also stated that, in case, after hearing the submissions having been made by him, still this Court comes to conclusion that accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 325 and 504 of IPC, in that eventuality, accused may be given the benefit of probation under Section 4(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, keeping in view the fact that accused is first offender. Moreover, he is the sole bread earner and has family to support and if at this stage, the petitioner-accused is convicted, his family shall have to face the humiliation in the village/society. Moreover, he is the sole bread earner and has family to support and if at this stage, the petitioner-accused is convicted, his family shall have to face the humiliation in the village/society. He also stated that mitigating circumstance in this case is that more than 9 years have passed after having the incident and more than 5 years after passing of the judgment dated 30.1.2010, whereby the accused was convicted and he has already suffered agony during the pendency of the appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge as well as in High Court of Himachal Pradesh. 8. In support of arguments, Mr. Anoop Chitkara also invited the attention of this Court to the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court titled as Shlok Bhardwaj versus Runika Bhardwaj and others, 2015 (2) SCC 721 and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan versus Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123 . 9. On the other hand, Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General duly assisted by Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, supported the judgments passed by both the Courts below. Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur vehemently argued that bare perusal of judgments passed by both the Courts below clearly suggests that same are based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence led on record by the prosecution, as such, no interference of this Court is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Thakur while referring to the statements of the prosecution witnesses stated that bare perusal of the statements of prosecution witnesses suggests that on 7.9.2007 at about 7:45 P.M. when complainant after finishing his work was about to leave to his house, accused Manoj Kumar came and wrongfully restrained him from proceeding further and started hurling filthy abuses to him without any rhyme and reason and when he asked accused as to why he is hurling abuses, then accused all of a sudden picked up a stone and threw the same upon the complainant which hit his right leg due to which he sustained injury near his right knee, which stands duly proved with the medical evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. Mr. Mr. Thakur, vehemently argued that plain reading of statements given by the prosecution witnesses, nowhere suggests that they have contradicted each other, rather careful reading of the same clearly suggests that prosecution witnesses have been very very candid and straightforward while deposing that accused hurled filthy abuses to him without rhyme and reason and when he asked the accused that why he is hurling abuses then accused all of a sudden picked up stone and threw the same on the complainant which hit his right leg due to which he sustained injuries, as such, both the Courts below have rightly held petitioner-accused guilty. Mr. Thakur forcefully contended that despite overwhelming evidence available on record, Courts below awarded minimum punishment and as such this is not a fit case, where this Court taking lenient view, review/modify the sentence passed by the Courts below. 10. Mr. Thakur also prayed that the petitioner-accused may not be given the benefit of probation under Section 4(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He stated that Courts below awarded minimum punishment to the accused, as such, this is not a fit case, where this Court taking lenient view may grant benefit of probation under Section 4(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 11. Lastly, Mr. Thakur, reminded this Court of its limited jurisdiction, while exercising powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. He stated that this Court enjoys very limited powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. to re-appreciate the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution to prove its case, especially when it stands proved on record that both the Courts below have dealt with each and every aspects of the matter meticulously. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Thakur prayed for the dismissal of the revision petition. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well carefully gone through the record of the case. 13. There is no doubt that this Court has very limited powers under Section 397 while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction but in the instant case, where petitioner-accused has been convicted and sentenced, it would be apt and in the interest of justice to critically examine the statements of the prosecution witnesses that too with a view to ascertain that the judgments passed by learned Courts below are not perverse and same are based upon correct appreciation of the evidence on record. 14. 14. As far as scope of power of this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another Versus Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241; has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities /incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality or sentence or order. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to meet out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/ incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order.” 15. In the present case, this Court had an occasion to travel to the entire evidence led on record by the respective parties during proceedings of the case and it can be safely concluded that judgment passed by learned Courts below are based upon the correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record and there is no illegality and infirmity, as such, which could persuade this Court to differ with the findings of the Courts below. However, keeping in view the fact that petitioner has been held guilty of offence committed under Section 325 and 504 IPC, this Court solely with a view to ascertain that the judgments passed by learned Courts below are not perverse and same are based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record, undertook an exercise to critically examine the evidence led on record by the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 16. In the present case, prosecution to prove its case examined as many as 9 witnesses. PW1 Hansraj, PW2 Suram Singh, PW3 Baljit Singh, PW4 Gian Chand, PW5 Partap, PW6 Nikka Ram, PW7 SHO Bakshi Ram, PW8 Dr. Shashi Dutt Sharma, PW9 HC Rajesh Kumar. 17. PW1 complainant stated that accused started hurling filthy abuses at him without any basis and on his being asked for the reason, accused took a stone and proclaimed to break his leg. He further stated that accused threw stone upon him, as a result of which, he sustained injury on right leg below knee joint. He also stated that blood started oozing out from the injury, which was caused due to aforesaid throwing of stone. He specifically stated that he fell down on the ground and was taken to hospital by Suram Singh and Baljit Singh. He also identified stone Ext. P1 before the Court. 18. Careful perusal of cross-examination conducted on this witness suggests that the aforesaid witness stuck to his statement made in examination chief and defence was not able to shatter his testimony, however, in his cross-examination he admitted that Surnam Singh and Baljit Singh are labourer. He also admitted that FIR was lodged against accused person and his statement was recorded by the police. 19. PW 2 Suram Singh, who was admittedly working as labourer at the construction site of PW1 also stated that on the day of occurrence at about 7:30/7:45 p.m. accused came there and loudly asked that who was present here. He further stated that complainant asked the accused to go to his house but accused proclaimed that road is not of his father and he took the stone and threw the same on complainant, as a result of which, complainant sustained injury on his leg. Aforesaid witness also stated that accused had threatened the complainant to do way with his life. Aforesaid witness also stated that accused had threatened the complainant to do way with his life. In his cross-examination, PW2 specifically denied suggestion that he is related to PW1. He also denied that no quarrel took place and he is deposing in favour of PW1 being his mason. PW2 also denied suggestions put-forth to him by defence that complainant had sustained injuries due to fall. 20. PW3 Baljit Singh also stated that about 7:30 p.m. accused came on the spot and loudly asked, who was present here. He also stated that complainant asked him to go to his house but accused took up a stone and threw the same on the complainant, on which complainant sustained injuries on his right leg. In his cross-examination, he stated that his statement was recorded by police but signature was not obtained. He categorically stated that blood started oozing out and trouser of the complainant was smeared with blood, however, it was not taken into possession by police. 21. PW6 Nikka Ram also stated that on the date of occurrence at about 8:00 p.m., PW2 Suram Singh made telephone call to him and informed that accused was quarrelling with his brother and caused injury to him with stone and accordingly on receiving information, he informed Police Post Deotsidh. In his cross-examination, he stated that he reached hospital about 8:15 p.m. where Suram Singh and Baljit Singh were also present. 22. PW8 Dr. Shashi Dutt Sharma, who medically examined the complainant, stated that on examination he observed a lacerated wound on the right leg anteriority 8 cm above ankle joint 1x0.5 and blood was oozing out from the wound. He further stated that complainant was advised X-ray on right leg A.P. lateral and after Radiologist opinion, fracture was found on shaft of right Fibia and Fabula within the probably duration of less than 24 hours from the time of examination. He further stated that he issued MLC Ext. PW8/A. 23. PW9 HC Rajesh Kumar, Investigating Officer, stated that on 7.9.2007 one Nikka Ram telephoned Police Post Deotsidh. He after entering Rapat Ext. PW9/A visited spot and recorded statement of complainant Ex.PW1/A. He also stated that on the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR Ext.PW7/A was registered. He further stated that he prepared site plan Ext. PW8/A. 23. PW9 HC Rajesh Kumar, Investigating Officer, stated that on 7.9.2007 one Nikka Ram telephoned Police Post Deotsidh. He after entering Rapat Ext. PW9/A visited spot and recorded statement of complainant Ex.PW1/A. He also stated that on the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR Ext.PW7/A was registered. He further stated that he prepared site plan Ext. PW9/B and took possession of stone which was sealed in a parcel with seal ‘R’ and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW2/A in the presence of Suram Singh and Gian Chand. He also stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version. In his cross-examination, PW9 stated that he had reached hospital at 8:30 p.m. where injured was admitted. He specifically denied the suggestions put to him that he prepared the site plan at Police Post Deotsidh. He also denied the suggestion put to him in his cross-examination that stone was produced before him by PW6 Nikka Ram. 24. PW4, PW5 and PW6 are formal witnesses and, as such, same are not relevant for examining the correctness of the judgments passed by Courts below. 25. Conjoint reading of the statements made by PW1, PW2 and PW3, PW6 and PW9, leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that on 7.9.2007 accused after entering into the construction site of complainant gave beatings to him and threw stone upon him, as a result of which, complainant suffered injuries on his right leg below knee. All the aforesaid witnesses unequivocally stated that on the date of occurrence accused came on the construction site and without rhyme and reason started giving beatings to the complainant and threw stone, as a result of which, complainant suffered simple as well as grievous injuries. Careful perusal of the cross-examination conducted on these prosecution witnesses, nowhere suggest, that defence was able to extract anything contrary to what these prosecution witnesses stated in their examination-in-chief. Rather close scrutiny of the cross-examination conducted on these prosecution witnesses clearly suggests that all the prosecution witnesses as referred to above have been very very consistent and straightforward while narrating the sequence of events occurred at the time of incident. 26. Rather close scrutiny of the cross-examination conducted on these prosecution witnesses clearly suggests that all the prosecution witnesses as referred to above have been very very consistent and straightforward while narrating the sequence of events occurred at the time of incident. 26. Since, this Court had an occasion to peruse the entire statements on record during the proceedings of the case, it can be safely concluded that all the prosecution witnesses are confidence inspiring and their statements being cogent and convincing were enough to conclude that on the date of occurrence, petitioner-accused apart from giving beatings to the complainant threw stone as a result of which he suffered simple as well as grievous injuries. Factum with regard to suffering of injuries, stands duly corroborated with the statement of PW8, who after examining the complainant issued MLC Ext. PW8/A. Dr. Shashi Dutt Sharma categorically stated that he medically examined complainant Hans Raj, who was brought to him with the alleged history of being hit by stone and on examination he observed lacerated wound on the right leg anteriority 8cm above ankle joint 1 x 0.5 cm and blood was oozing out from the wound. It has come in his statement that patient was advised X-ray of right leg and after Radiologist opinion fracture was found on shaft of right Fibia and Fabula and as such injury was grievous in nature caused with blunt weapon within the probable duration of less than 24 hours from the time of examination. The aforesaid PW8 also stated that he issued MLC Ex.PW8/A and also admitted that injury mentioned in the aforesaid MLC is possible with stone blow. However, in his cross-examination, PW8 specifically denied the suggestion that injury as mentioned in MLC is possible, if leg strikes with hard surface or if a person falls from stairs. Careful examination of aforesaid medical evidence led on record by prosecution clearly corroborate version put-forth on behalf of prosecution witnesses, who have categorically stated that petitioner accused threw stone on the complainant, as a result of which, he suffered injuries on his right leg below ankle. Careful examination of aforesaid medical evidence led on record by prosecution clearly corroborate version put-forth on behalf of prosecution witnesses, who have categorically stated that petitioner accused threw stone on the complainant, as a result of which, he suffered injuries on his right leg below ankle. Since, PW8 categorically denied suggestions put to him in his cross-examination that injuries as mentioned in MLC is possible by fall from stairs, this Court sees no reason to disbelieve the version put-forth on behalf of prosecution that complainant suffered simple as well as grievous injuries (fracture) on right leg due to hurling of stone by the petitioner-accused. 27. Since, counsel representing the petitioner-accused during proceedings of the present appeal was unable to point out any other illegality committed by Courts below while holding petitioner-accused guilty of offence committed, this Court sees no reasons, whatsoever, to interfere in the well reasoned judgments passed by Courts below, which are based upon correct appreciation of evidence. Rather, this Court after perusing the entire evidence on record is of the view that learned First Appellate Court while partly allowing the appeal preferred on behalf of present petitioner-accused took lenient view and reduced the punishment under Section 325 from two years to 6 months and under Section 504 from 6 months to 2 months and, as such, this Court sees no reason to accept prayer made on behalf of petitioner-accused to accept the present revision petition. 28. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion made herein above, this court has no hesitation to conclude that Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence available on record, hence, the judgments passed by the Courts below are upheld. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 29. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances as well as submissions having been made by the counsel representing the petitioner-accused for grant of the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act can be extended in favour of accused persons, especially, keeping in view the fact that accused is first offenders and have family to support. Perusal of record suggests that alleged incident had occurred in the year 2007 i.e. 9 years back, meaning thereby accused have already suffered agony of long litigation which remained pending in the Courts and during this period he remained under trauma and apprehension of being punished. Counsel representing the petitioner also submitted that accused is young and has a long career ahead and, in case, he is not extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, great prejudice would be caused to him. In support of the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in Yudhbir Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh 1998(1)S.L.J. 58, wherein it has been held as under:- “9. The only mitigating circumstance that appears to be there is that the time gap of about six years between the date of occurrence as well as the date of decision of this revision petitioner. During this entire period sword of present case looming over the head of the petitioner was always there. That being so, this court is of the view that instead of sending the petitioner to jail as ordered by the courts below, he is given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, it is ordered that he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today to keep peace and to be of good behavior for a period of one year from the date of execution of the bond before the court below as well as not to commit any such offence. In addition to being given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, petitioner is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- each to PWs Baldev Singh and Dilbagh Singh injured as compensation. Shri R.K. Gautam submitted that this amount of compensation be deposited with the trial Court on or before 31.8.1997, who will thereafter pay the same to said persons.” 30. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Hon’ble Apex Court judgment Ramesh Kumar @ Babla versus State of Punjab 2016 AIR (SC) 2858, wherein it has been held as under:- “7. Shri R.K. Gautam submitted that this amount of compensation be deposited with the trial Court on or before 31.8.1997, who will thereafter pay the same to said persons.” 30. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Hon’ble Apex Court judgment Ramesh Kumar @ Babla versus State of Punjab 2016 AIR (SC) 2858, wherein it has been held as under:- “7. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part by converting appellant’s conviction under Section 307 IPC to one under Section 324 IPC. On the question of sentence, it is pertinent to note that the occurrence took place in 1997. In his statement under Section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure the appellant gave his age in 2002 as 36 years. He claimed that he and others went to the place of occurrence on getting information that his brother Sanjay Kumar was assaulted by Ramesh Kumar (Complainant). He brought his brother to Police Station and lodged a report. As noticed by trial court, parties are involved in civil as well as criminal litigation from before. High Court has noted that appellant, as per custody certificate, is not involved in any other case. In such circumstances, it is not deemed necessary to send the appellant immediately to Jail custody after about 19 years of the occurrence when he appears to be 50 years of age and fully settled in life. 8. In view of aforesaid, in our view the ends of justice would be met by granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. We order accordingly and direct that the appellant be released on executing appropriate bond before the trial court to appear and receive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year when called upon to do so and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.” 31. The reliance is also placed upon Hon’ble Apex Court judgment Hari Kishan and State of Haryana versus Sukhbir Singh 1988 AIR (SC) 2127, wherein it has been held as under:- “8. The question next to be considered is whether the accused are entitled to the benefit of probation of good conduct? We gave our anxious consideration to the contentions urged by counsel. We are of opinion that the High Court has not committed any error in this regard also. The question next to be considered is whether the accused are entitled to the benefit of probation of good conduct? We gave our anxious consideration to the contentions urged by counsel. We are of opinion that the High Court has not committed any error in this regard also. Many offenders are not dangerous criminals but are weak characters or who have surrendered to temptation or provocation. In placing such type of offenders, on probation, the Court encourages their own sense of responsibility for their future and protect them from the stigma and possible contamination of prison. In this case, the High Court has observed that there was no previous history of enmity between the parties and the occurrence was an outcome of a sudden flare up. These are not showing to be incorrect. We have already said that the accused had no intention to commit murder of any person. Therefore, the extension of benefit of the beneficial legislation applicable to the first offenders cannot be said to be inappropriate. 9. This takes us to, the third questions which we have formulated earlier in this judgments. The High Court has directed each of the respondents to pay Rs.2500/- as compensation to Joginder. The High Court has not referred to any provision of law in support of the order of compensation. But that can be traced to section 357 Criminal Procedure Code Section 357, leaving aside the unnecessary, provides:- “357. Order to pay compensation:- (1) When a court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied- (a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution; (b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a civil Court; xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx (3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation. Such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been sentenced. Such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been sentenced. (4) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its power of revision. (5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this Section. 11. The payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable. What is reasonable, may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably. The payment also vary depending upon the acts of each accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by installments, may also be given. The Court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default.” 32. In view of the aforesaid law as well as submissions having been made by Mr. Chitkara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the present petitioner-accused can be granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 subject to payment of adequate compensation which would be determined after the receipt of the report of Probation Officer. 33. Accordingly, Registry is directed to call for the report of the Probation Officer, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. on or before 3rd October, 2016. Registry to list this matter on 7th October, 2016.