JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 2. By means of this petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C, the judgment dated 14.09.2015 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.21(2) of 2014 by the Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur has been called in question. By the said judgment dated 14.09.2015, the appellate court has set aside the judgment and order dated 06.05.2014 delivered in case No.CR 38 of 2012 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur [now Gomati Judicial District]. 3. The prosecution was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a written ejahar filed by the victim-complainant, namely Sri Prabir Saha to the Officer-in-Charge of R.K. Pur Police Station disclosing that when he had gone to the shop of one Dipak Saha, he got engaged in an altercation as highly inflated rate was claimed from him. When the complainant raised the protest, the son of the shopkeeper namely, Jayanta Saha, the petitioner herein, came out with an iron rod in his hand. By the said iron rod, the petitioner assaulted the victim-complainant by repeatedly hitting him. He fell unconscious. The local people transported him to the hospital. He was admitted in the hospital for a day and on the following day i.e. on 26.10.2011, he was released from the hospital. On the basis of the said written ejahar, R.K. Pur P.S. case No.467 of 2011 under Section 325 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. The police on completion of the investigation filed the final report chargesheeting the petitioner. On taking cognizance, the statement of accusation under Section 323 of the Cr.P.C. was read to the petitioner, to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to substantiate the statement of accusation, the prosecution adduced as many as 7(seven) witnesses including the victim-complaint [PW-1],the Investigating Officer, namely Subir Malakar [PW-7] and the Doctor, who examined the victim immediately after he was brought to the hospital, namely Dr. Chandan Mallik [PW-4]. 4. In order to substantiate the statement of accusation, the prosecution adduced as many as 7(seven) witnesses including the victim-complaint [PW-1],the Investigating Officer, namely Subir Malakar [PW-7] and the Doctor, who examined the victim immediately after he was brought to the hospital, namely Dr. Chandan Mallik [PW-4]. That apart, 4(four) documentary evidence including the written ejahar [Exbt.1] and the injury report [Exbt.2] were introduced in the evidence. From the defence, 6(six) defence witnesses including the petitioner [DW-2] were examined. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. though it had been stated by the petitioner that he would not adduce any evidence but later on, as it is found, he had adduced 6(six) witnesses to probablise his defence. 5. On appreciation of the evidence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Triopura [now Gomati Judicial District] by the judgment dated 06.05.2014 has observed as under: “But from the evidence on record of both the parties it is found that there is no dispute that on the alleged day when the informant came to the shop of the father of accused and that time a hot altercation took place on the issue of price of cigarette. But there is no conclusive evidence on record that the present accused on that relevant point of time dealt blow to the informant-cum-victim by iron rod for which he sustained fatal injury to presume him to be guilty for the alleged offence.” 6. Against the said order of acquittal, the complaint [PW-1] preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.21(2) of 2014 under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. in the court of the Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur. By the impugned judgment dated 14.09.2015, the judgment and order of acquittal had been interfered with and the appeal was allowed returning the finding of conviction of the petitioner under Section 323 of the IPC. As consequence of the said judgment of conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to suffer 6(six) months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further 1(one) month simple imprisonment. As consequence of the said judgment of conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to suffer 6(six) months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further 1(one) month simple imprisonment. While returning the finding of conviction, the appellate court has observed as under: “From the factual analysis and legal analysis of the evidence on record, it is found that the findings of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is incorrect and not on proper appreciation of the evidence. Without assigning any reason and disbelieving the evidence of 4 eye witnesses, the medical evidence and also the star witness i.e. the victim complainant of this case, the order of acquittal is passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thus, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these 4 eye witnesses and also the medical evidence. Therefore, findings of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The appeal has merit.” Thus, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 323 of the IPC. 7. Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that while interfering with the finding of acquittal, the appellate court was supposed to appreciate the consolidated status of innocence inasmuch as the trial court after analysis of the evidence had come to an inference and thereon passed the order of acquittal. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel has further submitted that on a keen reading of the evidence of PWs-1,2,3 & 4 on which the appellate court has relied so much, it would be apparent that their testimonies are not corroborative in nature, rather those did not support each other. Those are mutually destructive. He has referred to the written ejahar and submitted that the initial allegation was of repeated hits on the head by an iron road. Even the same narrative had been restated by the victim-complainant [PW-1] while deposing in the trial. But the injury report does not support at all the alleged hits by the iron rod on the head of the petitioner. From the injury report it appears that it was only a lacerated injury. As such, the trial court had correctly observed that the accusation was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the trial court had acquitted the petitioner. While reversing the said judgment of the trial court, the appellate court, according to Mr. From the injury report it appears that it was only a lacerated injury. As such, the trial court had correctly observed that the accusation was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the trial court had acquitted the petitioner. While reversing the said judgment of the trial court, the appellate court, according to Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel, has failed to conform to the principles as laid down by the apex court in respect of interference in the judgment of acquittal. 8. From the other side, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the victim-complainant-respondent No.1 has submitted that appreciation made by the trial court of the testimonies of PWs-1,2,3 & 4 is so perverse, those could not be sustained and hence, the appellate court has correctly revisited the finding of acquittal and by reversing the judgment of acquittal, the petitioner has been rightly convicted under Section 323 of the IPC. He has further submitted that even from the testimonies of the defence witnesses [DWs], it would be apparent that there was altercation. Thus, the case of the victim-complainant got support partly from the evidence of the defence witnesses. Without placing any further emphasis thereon, he has asserted that if the testimonies of PWs-1,2,3 & 4 are read, there cannot any amount of doubt that the petitioner caused hurt which is punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. No interference is as such warranted in the circumstances of the case. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State has supported the submission as advanced by Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel stoutly contending that there is no space for interfering with the impugned judgment dated 14.09.2015. 9. Having appreciated the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as on scrutiny of the records, this court is totally in agreement with the reasons as provided for reversing the judgment of the trial court but what has particularly attracted attention of this court is that at time of commission of the offence, the petitioner was aged about 23 years and he does not have any criminal antecedent. The petitioner was provoked by the suddenness of the circumstances where his father was engaged in an altercation with the victim-complainant. Moreover, it appears that the petitioner is a Government servant. 10. The petitioner was provoked by the suddenness of the circumstances where his father was engaged in an altercation with the victim-complainant. Moreover, it appears that the petitioner is a Government servant. 10. Having appreciated the evidence as recorded, this court finds that the conviction cannot be interfered with as the trial court had wrongly read the evidence of PWs-1,2,3 & 4. PWs-1,2 & 3 are the eye witnesses or the witnesses who appeared in the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence and they have corroborated each other and the version of the victim-complainant [PW-1] whereas PW-4 who is a Medical Officer has categorically stated that the petitioner suffered injury. When he was taken to the hospital, the injury was fresh and the injury was caused by a blunt object. He admitted the injury report in the evidence. His testimony and the injury report [Exbt.2] have corroborated the statement of PW-1 and hence, the finding of the conviction is affirmed but this court having considered the nature of the crime, the circumstances related to the transaction of the offence and the age of the petitioner, is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and hence, sentence as passed by the appellate court be interfered with or modified. If the petitioner furnished a bond of good conduct for a period of one year supported by one surety of Rs.20,000/- [Rupees twenty thousand], he shall be released. However, for a period of one year, he shall be placed under surveillance of the Probation Officer. If any adverse report is received from the Probation Officer, the petitioner shall be coerced to serve out the sentence as awarded by the appellate court. That apart, this court is of the view that the petitioner shall compensate the victim-complainant [PW-1] for what the victim has suffered for the assault committed by the petitioner. Accordingly, in terms of Sections 357(3) read with Section 357(4) of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- [Rupees twenty thousand] in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur within a period of 30(thirty) days from the day when a copy of this order would reach that court. On deposit, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur shall pay the said amount to the victim-complainant [PW-1] as compensation. On deposit, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur shall pay the said amount to the victim-complainant [PW-1] as compensation. It is made further clear that the petitioner shall submit the bond of good conduct in terms of the above within 30[thirty] days when a copy of this order would reach to the trial court. On breach or failure to submit the bond of good conduct in the manner as stated above or for failure of making payment, the petitioner shall suffer the sentence as awarded by the first appellate court. For repelling any confusion, it is stated that for being in the probation or for payment of the compensation in terms of this order, the petitioner’s service shall not be affected in any manner. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed partly to the extent as indicated above. Send down the LCRs forthwith.