1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.363 OF 2009 Shri Yuvraj Balaso Powar : Applicant (Orig. Complainant) V/s. Shri Sameer Anandrao Kulkarni & Ors. : Respondents (Nos.1&2 Orig. Accused Nos.1&2) .... Mr.P.S.Bhavake for the applicant. Mr.S.A.Rajeshirke for respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr.P.S.Hingorani, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.3. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : APRIL 06, 2010. P.C.: This revision application challenges the order dated 12.2.2009 to the limited extent of enhancing the sentence which is awarded. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that as an outcome of the incident, the applicant has lost his eyes. He, therefore, submits that in these circumstances, the learned trial Court ought not to have given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused persons. 2. To meet equities, the Court had suggested the accused to pay additional compensation of Rs.12,000/- each to the applicant. The 2 accused have agreed for the same. However, the applicant does not agree for the same. 3. It is a settled law that the Courts are required to take into consideration as to whether the benefit to a first offender could be given of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court while convicting the accused has taken into consideration that the incident was an unfortunate incident. However, it has been found on taking into consideration the evidence on record that an offence only under section 323 could be made out. In these circumstances and taking into consideration the age of the accused who were admittedly below 21 years of age, the Court found that this was a clear case wherein the accused, instead of sentencing them to suffer the sentence forthwith, should be directed to furnish a bond of good conduct and behavior for a period of one year before directing them to undergo the sentence. 4. No perversity is noticed in the approach adopted by the learned trial Court warranting interference. Criminal Revision Application is rejected. B. R. GAVAI, J.