JUDGMENT : R.C. Khulbe, J. 1. This revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.01.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Appeal no. 92 of 2010, whereby the said Court has affirmed the order and judgment dated 01.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 409 of 2008 (Crime No. 1407 of 2005) in “State Vs. Surjeet Singh and another” u/s. Section 323 & 325 of IPC, convicting and sentencing the revisionists u/s. 323 of IPC for six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and u/s. 325 of IPC for one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that Harbans Singh lodged a report on 20.07.2005 with the allegations that he had gone to bring labourers to cut the paddy crop and while returning back to home the accused Surjeet Singh and Billu stopped him in front of their house and assaulted him with lathis and dandas. On the alarm raised by him, Gurdev Singh and Jagir Singh reached there and saved him. He got himself examined at Government Hospital and lodged a report at P.S. Nanakmatta to this effect. 3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the police against the accused under sections 323 and 325 of IPC and accordingly charges were framed against the accused, which they denied and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution produced PW-1, Harbans Singh, PW-2, Dr. H.P. Rajput, PW-3, Jagir Singh, PW-4, Gurdev Singh and PW-5, Ganga Sahay Satsangi. 5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which they denied all the allegations and claimed innocence. However, no defence evidence was produced by the accused. 6. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons u/s. 323 of IPC for six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and u/s. 325 of IPC for one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation. 7. Aggrieved by the order and judgment passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, which was dismissed affirming the judgment and order of the Trial Court. 3,000/- with default stipulation. 7. Aggrieved by the order and judgment passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, which was dismissed affirming the judgment and order of the Trial Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record produced before this Court. 9. The injured PW-1, Harbans Singh stated that he had gone to bring labourers to cut the paddy crop and while returning back to home the accused Surjeet Singh and Billu stopped him in front of his cousin's house and assaulted him with lathis and dandas due to which he sustained injuries and on raising alarm by him, Gurdev Singh and Jagir Singh reached there and saved him. After the incident he got himself examined at Government Hospital and lodged a report at P.S. Nanakmatta. 10. PW-2, Dr. H.P. Rajput who examined the injured Harbans stated that on 21.07.2005 and 12.08.2005 he has conducted medical examination of the injured and prepared the report. The following injures were found on the person of the injured Harbans:- “(1) Injury no. 1 abrasion 2 x 1 x 1 c.m. in the middle of the right hand with blood clot. Complaining pain on pressing. (2) Injury no. 26 x 4 c.m. swelling in upper part of the left arm which was reddish brown. (3) Injury no. 3 Contusion 5 x 4 c.m. behind right shoulder which was reddish brown. X-ray was advised for injury nos. 1 and 3. The above injuries seem to be from a hard and blunt object.” 11. PW-3, Jagir Singh stated that on 20.07.2005 at about 10-11 a.m. when was at home, then he heard the sound of scream and shouting; he came out and saw that the crowd had assembled; the cycle of the Harbans Singh had fallen; Harbans Singh was being beaten by Surjeet Singh and Billu by Dandas. 12. PW-4, Gurdev Singh also stated in his statement that on 20.07.2005 when he was going towards his field, he saw that Harbans Singh had fallen down and Surjeet Singh and Billu were beating Harbans Singh with Dandas and were abusing him. 13. PW-5 is S.I. Ganga Sahai Satsangi who conducted the investigation of the matter and prepared spot map Ex.Ka-5 and recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter charge Sheet Ex.Ka-6 was filed against the accused. 13. PW-5 is S.I. Ganga Sahai Satsangi who conducted the investigation of the matter and prepared spot map Ex.Ka-5 and recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter charge Sheet Ex.Ka-6 was filed against the accused. 14. Since, during appeal, one of the revisionists Billu passed away, hence, the appeal stood abated against him. 15. Learned counsel for the revisionists has vehemently argued that the revisionist no. 1 Surjeet Singh is the first-time offender and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, therefore, he may be released on probation by giving him the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and while doing so, the Court may award reasonable compensation to be paid by the accused/revisionist to the injured Harbans Singh under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read with Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. 16. Ms. Shivali Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State, admitted that she has not received any report about the criminal antecedents of the revisionist-Surjeet Singh, and admitted that the revisionist is a first-time offender. 17. As per the records, when the injured Harbans Singh was returning to his house, the accused Surjeet Singh and Billu stopped him and assaulted the informant with lathi and danda. On his shouting Gurdev Singh and Jagir Singh reached the spot and they saved him. The informant sustained injuries on his chest and other parts of the body. 18. The prosecution has produced the witnesses Jagir Singh as PW-3 and Gurdev Singh as PW-4. Both these star witnesses have categorically stated in their statements that on 20.07.2005 at about 10 to 11 a.m. they heard the noise near their house. When they reached the spot, they saw that Surjeet Singh and Billu, who were carrying dandas, started to assault Harbans Singh. 19. The statement of injured PW-1, Harbans Singh has duly been proved by the independent witnesses PW-3, Jagir Singh and PW-4, Gurdev Singh. 20. As far as the injuries are concerned, Dr. H.P. Rajput appeared as PW-2 who examined the informant-Harbans Singh on 21.07.2005 and prepared the injury report Ex.Ka-2 and Ka-3. The injuries caused by the accused are proved from the medical evidence Ex.Ka-1 and Ex. Ka-3 also. 21. From the evidence, I am of the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond any reasonable doubt. H.P. Rajput appeared as PW-2 who examined the informant-Harbans Singh on 21.07.2005 and prepared the injury report Ex.Ka-2 and Ka-3. The injuries caused by the accused are proved from the medical evidence Ex.Ka-1 and Ex. Ka-3 also. 21. From the evidence, I am of the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond any reasonable doubt. From the evidence it is clear that the accused caused grievous injuries which fall under the definition of Section 320 of IPC. There is clinching evidence against the revisionist, hence, no illegality or irregularity is found in the findings recorded by learned Trial Court, and as affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Appeal no. 92 of 2010 affirming the order and judgment of learned Trial Court. 22. As far as the sentence part is concerned, the accused Surjeet Singh was awarded sentence to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 323 IPC and further to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for one year alongwith a fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 325 IPC. Since, the sentence under Section 325 IPC has been awarded, therefore, no sentence is required to be passed under Section 323 IPC in the peculiar facts of this case. Hence, for committing the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC, he cannot be convicted and sentenced under Section 323 IPC. 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commandant, 20th Battalion, ITB Police Vs. Sanjay Binjola reported in 2001 SCC (Cri.) 2, 897 in paragraph 7 has held as under: “7. Probation of Offenders Act has been enacted in view of the increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offenders as a useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to deleterious effect of jail life. The Act empowers the Court to release on probation, in all suitable cases, an offender found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for the description mentioned in Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act.” Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read as under: “3. The Act empowers the Court to release on probation, in all suitable cases, an offender found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for the description mentioned in Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act.” Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read as under: “3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition-When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 or Section 380 or Section 381 or Section 404 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under Section 4 release him after due admonition. Explanation-For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or Section 4.” 4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct 1. Explanation-For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or Section 4.” 4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct 1. When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: “Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. 2. Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. 3. When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender. 4. 4. The Court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. 5. The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned. 5. Power of court to require released offenders to pay compensation and costs.-- 1. The court directing the release of an offender under Section 3 or Section 4, may, if it thinks fit, make at the same time a further order directing him to pay-- a. such compensation as the court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person by the commission of the offence; and b. such costs of the proceedings as the court thinks reasonable. 2. The amount ordered to be paid under sub-section (1) may be recovered as a fine in accordance with the provisions of Sections 386 and 387 of the Code. 3. A civil court trying any suit, arising out of the same matter for which the offender is prosecuted, shall take into account any amount paid or recovered as compensation under sub-section (1) in awarding damages.” 24. A bare perusal of Section 3 would demonstrate that if a person is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 379 or 380 or 381 or 404 or 420 IPC or for any other offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, and such person is found to be first time offender, the Court after due admonition, may direct release of such person on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Act. Explanation to Section 3 of the Act would demonstrate that previous release on probation shall be treated as previous conviction. Explanation to Section 3 of the Act would demonstrate that previous release on probation shall be treated as previous conviction. Meaning thereby, if such a person has already been released on probation by giving benefit of probation of first offender Act, at any earlier point of time, he cannot seek release on probation for the subsequent offence in subsequent trial. In other words, benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to the accused once in a life time, if other conditions of Sections 3 and 4 are available. 25. Section 4 of the Act would demonstrate that if a person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, in that event, considering the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, the Court, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, may release such person on probation of good conduct, on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, for a period not exceeding three years. Before releasing the offender, on probation, the Court must satisfy itself that offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. The Court before passing the order of release on probation may also call report of the Probation Officer. The Court while releasing on probation may also direct that accused shall remain under the supervision of Probation Officer for a period not less than one year. 26. A combined reading of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act would reveal that if the offence is punishable for not more than 2 years then release on probation shall be after admonition. However, if offence is punishable for a period more than 2 years but not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, admonition of sentence shall not be required and if person, released on probation, is found involved in any offence during the period of probation or otherwise, is found behaving in violation of condition of bond, he shall be directed to serve out the sentence awarded by the court. In other words, while on probation such person should not involve himself in subsequent offence or must honour the condition of his bond/surety bond and if he breaches the same, he has to serve out the sentence awarded by the Court. 27. Section 5 of the Act gives powers to the court to direct the offender to pay compensation/costs to the victim, as the court may deem fit. 28. As per mandate of Section 6 of the Act, if offender is under 21 years of age, he has to be released on probation, if all the conditions of Section 3 and 4 of the Act are found satisfied, unless the court records its satisfaction in writing that release on probation would not be desirable, considering the nature of the offence as well as character of the offender. 29. As per Section 11 of the Act, powers as provided under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act may be exercised by the Appellate or Revisional Court as well. 30. In the present case the revisionist Surjeet Singh is a first-time offender. The incident seems to be taken place due to some dispute pertaining to relationship, that too all of a sudden, and it also appears that the accused had not planned to assault Harbans Singh in advance. 31. Moreover, injuries on the person of Harbans Singh were not held to be dangerous to life. Therefore, considering the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the revisionist in jail to serve out the remaining sentence. Consequently, he should be released on probation in order to reform himself. 32. For the injury and pain suffered by injured Harbans Singh, he may be compensated by directing the accused/revisionist Surjeet Singh to pay the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- as provided under Section 5 of the Act read with Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. 33. The present revision, thus, stands disposed of with the direction that the revisionist Surjeet Singh shall be released on probation for a period of three years on furnishing his personal bond to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court with one surety. The Magistrate shall be at liberty to impose such conditions while executing the bond which he feels fit in accordance with the law. The revisionist/accused Surjeet Singh shall also deposit Rs. 25,000/- with the Trial Court while furnishing the bonds. The Magistrate shall be at liberty to impose such conditions while executing the bond which he feels fit in accordance with the law. The revisionist/accused Surjeet Singh shall also deposit Rs. 25,000/- with the Trial Court while furnishing the bonds. On receiving Rs. 25,000/- from the revisionist, the Trial Court shall issue notice to injured Harbans Singh to receive the amount of compensation deposited by the revisionist and shall ensure the payment of compensation to Harbans Singh. It goes without saying that if accused/revisionist fails to observe good conduct and behaviour during probation or is found violating any condition imposed by the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bond calling the accused to serve out the remaining sentence. If any amount as fine is already deposited by the revisionist Surjeet Singh, the same shall be adjusted with the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, as imposed by this Court. The revisionist Surjeet Singh shall appear before the Trial Court on 13.5.2019 for compliance. 34. Let a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the learned Trial Court for information/compliance.