JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J.
1. Krishna Veer, the revisionist, was tried by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 2997 of 2004 for offence under Sections 323, 325 and 504, IPC, for the allegations that on 12.3.1998 at 5.00 PM he, under the influence of liquor, started assaulting Shyam Singh, father of Krishna Pal Singh, informant, from Danda. On hue and cry being raised by Shyam Singh, the assault was witnessed by Nawab, Kailash and many other persons. Shyam Singh was medically examined on 14.3.1998 at P.H.C., Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad. The F.I.R. of the informant Krishna Pal Singh was registered at the Police Station and, after due investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against Krishna Veer. In the trial the informant Krishna Pal Singh examined himself as P.W. 1, Shyam Singh, injured as P.W. 2, Nawab as P.W. 3, Kailash as P.W. 4, Dr. G.S. Patel as P.W.5 and Dr. Harishchand Dua as P.W. 6. The revisionist accused took the defence of false implication. The trial court, believing the case of the prosecution, recorded a finding that the prosecution has proved the case against the revisionist accused and, consequently, the trial court convicted the revisionist under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to six months imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, one year imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 325 IPC and under Section 504 IPC six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, vide its order dated 17.11.2004. The trial Magistrate also ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Aggrieved by his aforesaid conviction and sentences, the accused revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2004 before the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, which was transferred to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad. The lower Appellate Court vide his impugned order dated 6.12.2006 dismissed the appeal but modified the sentences directing the revisionist to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- under Section 323 IPC, conviction and sentence of one year imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 325 IPC was maintained but it reduced the sentence under Section 504 IPC to three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-. It further ordered that the revisionist will undergo three months' simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentences, revisionist has preferred this criminal revision.
4. I have heard Sri D.S. Pandey, learned Counsel for the revisionist at great length. Sri D.S. Pandey fairly conceded that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below do not suffer from any error of law and, therefore, he did not address the Court on the conviction part as is recorded by both the courts below. However, he submitted that the incident had taken place as far back as in the year 1998 and eight years have elapsed since then, therefore, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the revisionist should be altered into fine and compensation. He submitted that the revisionist had no bad antecedent, nor he was having any criminal history, therefore, he should have been released on probation. He further contended that the trial Magistrate did not give any cogent and sufficient reasons not to release the revisionist on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that in the wake of liquor, the revisionist could not understand the nature of the act and, therefore, one year and three months imprisonment as has been awarded to him by the lower Appellate Court is too excessive a sentence and, therefore, it should be reduced.
5. Learned Counsel has contended that since the revisionist does not have any bad antecedent, he must be given an opportunity by showing clemency on him by not sentencing him to jail. He further contended that after the dismissal of appeal on 6.12.2006, the revisionist has already served out a sentence of fifteen days' imprisonment.
6. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, contended that the revisionist had assaulted the injured and the sentence is to lenient and it should not be interfered with.
7. I have considered the arguments of both the sides and findings recorded by both the lower courts and the injuries, which have been sustained by injured person. The injury report of the injured person indicates that the injured sustained injuries on the hand, scapula and on the thigh. The injury report further indicates that the injuries were traumatic swelling and rest of the four injuries were only contusions. The injured has also sustained fracture of his metacarpal bone of his left hand.
8. Seeing the nature of the injuries as well as keeping in view the fact that the accused, was in a drunkard state and it was his first offence that I consider it appropriate to confirm his conviction but reduce his period of imprisonment and fine to the period already undergone with compensation of Rs. 18,000/- which shall be given to the injured person for the injuries sustained by him at hands of the accused revisionist within a period of two weeks from the date of deposit of the said compensation amount. For realizing the said compensation amount, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No. 7, Ghaziabad is directed to release the revisionist on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to his satisfaction. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad will grant revisionist two weeks' time to deposit the said amount of compensation with him from the date of his release. After the said amount of compensation is deposited with the trial Magistrate, the trial Magistrate will disburse it to the injured Shyam Singh, father of the informant Krishna Pal Singh within a period of week thereafter, without any security or surety as compensation. In the event of failure by the revisionist to deposit the said amount of compensation within the stipulated period from the date of his release, the trial Magistrate is directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the revisionist and get him arrested forthwith and lodge him in jail to serve out the sentences awarded by the lower Appellate Court. After the amount of compensation is deposited, the surety bond and bail bonds shall be discharged by the Magistrate.
9. In view of what I have stated above, this revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the revisionist is maintained but his sentence is altered accordingly as has been stated above.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Magistrate forthwith for compliance and necessary action. The trial Magistrate is directed to inform this Court regarding compliance made by him as soon as the said compliance is made.