JUDGMENT 1. - All these three matters arise out of the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, dated 30th of June, 1971, whereby the five appellants have been convicted of an offence under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and each one of them is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. During the pendency of the trial the parties came to a compromise and compromise deed was produced before the trial court, but the learned trial Judge could not take into consideration the compromise deed while deciding the matter in respect of the offence under section 148, Indian Penal Code, as it was not compoundable. The learned Judge, however, recorded a finding that prosecution has proved an offence under section 323, 324 and 325 IPC, against the accused appellants, but in view of the composition of the crime the learned Judge acquitted the appellants of the charges under section 323, 324 and 325 IPC. It was, however, held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused under section 307 IPC, for which the stood charged before the trial court. 2. Mr. Than Chand appearing on behalf of Har Dutt, appellant, strenuously urged before me that the trial court has committed a grave error in placing reliance on the sole testimony of the complainant, who, according to Mr. Than Chand, is not a witness of sterling worth, as his testimony does not find support from the medical evidence. Besides complainant the prosecution produced three eye witnesses, namely, PW 7 Ismail, PW 9 Babu and PW 4 Hidaram. Babu and Ismail turned hostile to the prosecution, but Hidaram's testimony was believed by the trial court to find support to the evidence of the complainant PW 1 Salam Singh. The argument of Mr. Than Chand against Hidaram is that he resiled from his previous statement recorded by the police Ex. D/3, wherein he had stated that he heard that such an incident had taken place, but did not see actually with his own eyes. The argument of Mr. Than Chand against Hidaram is that he resiled from his previous statement recorded by the police Ex. D/3, wherein he had stated that he heard that such an incident had taken place, but did not see actually with his own eyes. The learned trial Judge, however, brushed aside this discrepancy in his statement by saying that the investigating officer, who was handling the case, was out to help the accused persons and it was on the complaint of the complainant that the investigation was transferred from the head constable Babu Singh (PW 14) to the station House Officer of another Police Station and, therefore, in view of this fact the learnd trial Judge did not give much weight to the discrepancy relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant to discard the testimony of Hidaram. 3. I have carefully gone through the statement of PW 1 Salam Singh and PW 4 Hidaram. The discrepancies pointed out by Mr. Than Chand in the testimony of Salam Singh, no doubt, are there. But they relate to the details of the injuries inflicted on the persons, of Salam Singh by individual accused persons. These discrepancies are not of the character which may compelled the court to throw the entire evidence of Salam Singh, who, sustained as many as 17 injuries during the course of this incident. The report of the incident was lodged next morning in which the names of all the five accused persons find place. The report was lodged by Salam Singh himself. There is consistency in the stand taken by Salam Singh about the participation of the individual accused persons in the incident and that stand finds support from the testimony of PW 4 Hidaram. It is true that the Doctor does not support Salam Singh in respect of certain injuries, which he attributed to Ishwar Singh and Madan Singh, but that discrepancy cannot be pressed into service to totally discard out the testimony of the complainant. In my opinion, the trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has rightly come to the conclusion that all the five accused persons were involved in giving beating to Salam Singh. 4. In my opinion, the trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has rightly come to the conclusion that all the five accused persons were involved in giving beating to Salam Singh. 4. It is next urged that in view of the fact that with the intervention of the influential village people the relations between the complainant party and the accused party have been smoothen and the complainant party has no objection if the accused persons were let off. In the application filed by Salam Singh on 22nd of May,1971, it has been specifically mentioned that the complainant had very cordial relations with Madan Singh, Ishwar Singh etc. for a very long time and that due to the intervention of the influential persons of the village they have washed out their ill will, which had spoiled their relations on account of certain circumstances and , therefore, it was prayed that the accused persons may not be convicted. The learned trial Judge, however, found it difficult to acquit the accused persons of the charge under section 148 IPC, as it was not compoundable offence and since the prosecution evidence has established the charge against the accused persons, the Court below found itself helpless in giving effect to the prayer made by the complainant while submitting the composition deed. Mr. Than Chand, however, urged that by sending the accused persons to Jail after such a long time would revive the enmity between the parties once again and therefore he suggested that if the Court feels that the conviction of the accused persons under section 148, IPC, cannot be set aside then the accused persons may be given the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Learned Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State, however, has nothing to say about this suggestion made by Mr. Than Chand and submits that it is entirely within the discretion of this court. 5. Looking to the circumstances of this case the conviction of all the five accused persons, namely, Madan Singh, Ishwar Singh, Suban, Narayan & Hardutt, under section 148 Indian Penal Code is maintained, but they are given the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act & it is ordered that the accused-appellants shall not be sent to Jail provided each one of them executes a personal bond for Rs. 2000/-. 2000/-. Two thousand & furnished a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, to keep peace & be of good behaviour for a period of two years from the date the bond is executed. The bond shall be executed within one month from today. In case the accused appellants fail to execute the bond and furnish the surety within one month, they will serve out the sentence awarded to each one of them by the trial court. 6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. *******