1. - This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 2 May 2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran in Criminal Appeal No. 60/2002 - Hazari Lal Bhargava v. State , by which conviction and sentence recorded under Sections 452 and 326 IPC against the respondent by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baran in Criminal Case No. 116/96 has been set aside by giving benefit of doubt and the accused-respondent has been convicted under section 324 IPC and instead of awarding sentence gave benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that a first information report (Ex.P-3) was lodged by complainant PW-7 Sita Ram Sapra in police station Baran alleging therein that on 11.9.1990 at about 5.00 p.m. in the evening while he was sitting in his house and was taking tea, he heard accused abusing and was being told by Ram Karan and Vinod Kumar not to abusive, at that time on opening the door of the home by the complainant, the accused came inside with a Dharia (a sharp edged weapon), inflicted blow by Dharia on the wrist of the right hand of the complainant, as a result of which complainant sustained injury on the wrist. It was also alleged that again a blow was inflicted by Dharia resulting in damage to the left hand thumb. On this report, an FIR No. 13/90 was registered under sections 324 and 452 IPC and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed in the trial court under Sections 452, 324 and 326 IPC. In all 17 witnesses were examined from the side of the prosecution and some documents were tendered in the evidence. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. No evidence in defence was produced. The learned trial court after hearing both sides, vide judgment dated 4.6.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused-respondent as under :

3. Under Section 452 IPC to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Under Section 324 IPC to suffer six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Under section 326 IPC to suffer two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. An appeal No. 60/2002 was preferred by the accused-respondent against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which came to be decided by the learned appellate court on 2nd May, 2003. The learned appellate court while acquitting the accused for the offences under sections 452 and 326 IPC, convicted him under section 324 IPC. The appellate court instead of sentencing the accused-respondent under section 324 IPC gave benefit of the provisions of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and also ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 4,000/- to the injured in relation to the injury sustained by him and in making default to deposit the amount of compensation before the trial court upto 31.5.2003 to undergo sentence awarded by the learned trial court.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case the learned trial court had rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-respondent, therefore, no interference was required to be made by the learned appellate court. It is also contended that prosecution has been able to prove in this case the charges framed against the accused respondent without any manner of doubt, therefore, accused deserves no leniency in the matter. It is further contended that the accused-respondent is a lawyer, therefore, leniency was taken in the matter which was not required to be taken.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondent has su