JUDGMENT : HIRDESH, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by appellant under section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 29-4-2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 30/2000 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge Sehore by which, appellant has been convicted under section 325 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. 2. Prosecution story in nutshell is that on 18-11-1996 at 7:00 PM while the complainant Akhilesh Rathore was walking on road, the appellant was teasing him by calling him Teli. The complainant went and told his father, who in turn went to the house of his neighbour, namely, to sort out the matter, when a fight ensued which resulted in an injury on the person of the complainant, due to alleged hit by stick attributed to the appellant. Complainant filed a FIR before the Police Station, Kotwali, District Sehore and a case under section 307 of Indian Penal Code was registered under crime No. 679/1999. Police referred the injured for medical examination and after due investigation filed charge sheet before the competent Court. 3. Trial Court framed charge against the accused/appellant and appellant/accused denied the charge then after taking evidence trial Court found that accused caused grievous injuries to the Akhilesh PW-1 thereafter appellant was convicted under section 325 of Indian Penal Code as mentioned above. 4. Appellant/accused challenges the aforesaid conviction and sentence on the ground that trial Court failed to see that there is no evidence on record to prove that accused was guilty. He submitted that prosecution witnesses are relative witnesses and prosecution failed to produce the independent witness, medical witness not corroborate the eye witness PW-1 and doctor. He further submitted that there are so many omissions and contradictions has been found in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Appellant and complainant have enmity therefore, Akhilesh lodged FIR against the appellant. Trial Court erred in holding the appellant guilty therefore, counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside the conviction and sentence of appellant, and he be acquitted from the charges. 5. Learned counsel for the State has supported the trial Court judgment and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 6. Question of determination is whether the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused and whether appeal may be accepted? 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the State has supported the trial Court judgment and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 6. Question of determination is whether the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused and whether appeal may be accepted? 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. First question arises whether PW-1 (Akhilesh) sustained injuries on his body on the date of incident i.e. on 18-11-1996. On this point, PW-1 Akhilesh in his examination-in-chief stated that he received injuries on his body on the incident date. Dr. R.K. Gupta stated in his examination-in-chief that he examined the Akhilesh on his hospital on 18-11-1996 and found injuries on his head and in right elbow. Dr. Ajit Sewkani (PW-12) also examined Akhilesh and stated that he found injuries on his nose, ear and on head. Considering the evidence of medical expert and PW-1 Akhilesh, it is found that on incident date PW-1 received injuries which was grievous in nature. 9. Now second question arises whether these injuries are caused by the appellant was warranted to complainant. PW-1 stated in his cross-examination that on incident date on 18-11-1996 was teasing him by calling him ‘Teli’ when his father went to house of neighbour to sort out the matter then appellant assaulted him by stick due to which he received injuries on his head, hand, ear and nose. PW-2 Hariram who is the father of PW-1 also supported the substantial part of statement of PW-1. PW-3 (Usha Rathore) and PW-5 (Kaluram) also supported the evidence of PW-1 (Akhilesh). Considering the examination of PW-1, 2 and 3 PW-5, it was found that they were intact in their cross-examination and they denied all the suggestions given by the defence lawyer. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and their evidence was not supported by the independent witnesses. In Chauda vs. State of M.P. 2019 ILR M.P. 471, a Division Bench of this Court has held as - an interested eye witnesses- presence of eye witnesses establishes their statement. “The appellants failed to rebut their testimony which was quite natural and without any material contradiction and omission the conviction can be based on the testimony of close relatives/interested witnesses. There is no material contradiction or omission between testimony of eye witnesses and medical evidence which must be relied upon. “The appellants failed to rebut their testimony which was quite natural and without any material contradiction and omission the conviction can be based on the testimony of close relatives/interested witnesses. There is no material contradiction or omission between testimony of eye witnesses and medical evidence which must be relied upon. In this case it is held that if interested/relative witnesses are reliable then these evidence are not discarded merely on this ground.” 11. In Smt. Dalbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab, Cri. (1976) 418 it was held: “Interested witnesses are related witnesses and they are natural witnesses. They are not interested witnesses and their testimony can be relied upon.” In Mukesh vs. State Delhi, (2017) 6 SCC 1 it was held that: “Testimony of injured eye witnesses have great evidenciary value it means that he was present at the time of occurrence. Evidence of injured witnesses is entitled to be greater bit.” 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution has failed to examine independent witnesses. It is settled that there were not always necessary that case must have supported by independent witnesses. A prosecution evidence is reliable, cogent and trustworthy and there is no need to support by independent witnesses. In present case, all the prosecution witnesses are not un-rebutted in their cross examination and their evidence are supported by medical evidence, so this Court disagree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution witnesses required corroboration from other independent witnesses. So after considering all above facts this Court found that prosecution witnesses are reliable their evidence was supported by the medical evidence hence, they inspire confidence to believe in their evidence. 13. After taking into consideration all above facts this Court agree with the finding of the lower Court on the judgment and conviction of appellant under section 325 of Indian Penal Code can be substance, this Court upheld the conviction given by the trial Court. 14. In this case, at the time of judgment appellant was 21 years old now he was near about 42 to 45 years old and has never been previously convicted, so it means that he is first offender. He quarrel with PW-1 for minor reason. He is the only earning member of the family. He is regularly coming in the Court since 2000. He quarrel with PW-1 for minor reason. He is the only earning member of the family. He is regularly coming in the Court since 2000. Now if he is sent to jail then accused/appellant may be developed as habitual criminal, when he is allowed to live in jail with hard core criminals. If compensation be paid to the complainant then purpose of justice must be fulfilled. He is facing criminal case since 2000, hence, to meet the end of justice the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him with the fine imposed by the trial Court. Appeal is partly allowed with aforesaid modification, he be discharged with his bail bonds. 15. In Ved Prakash vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 643 Hon’ble Apex Court has held that sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical prescription acting as hunch. 16. So, therefore, this Court directed that appellant/accused be released under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and instead of sentencing him direct that he will be released on his entering into a bond of Rs. 5,000/- before the trial Court with one surety which shall be independent person to appear and received sentence, when called upon directing the bond of 3 (three) years from the date of judgment and meantime to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. If he violates the condition of bond liable for sentence given by trial Court. Personal bond and surety must be furnished within 15 days from judgment. 17. Under section 5 of Probation of Offenders Act accused/appellant must pay total compensation Rs. 30,000/- to injured PW-1, within 30 days from the judgment. If he is not deposit compensation within 30 days in trial Court, accused/appellant is liable for 3 (three) months sentence. Deposited fine must be adjusted in compensation amount. Trial Court must take legal action for giving compensation to injured persons. 18. So appeal of appellant allowed partly in point of sentence, hence bail bond must be cancelled. 19. Copy of order be sent to the concerned Court for information along with original record of Court below.