JUDGMENT 1. - As both these appeals arise out of the same judgement dated October 27, 1976 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, they are being disposed of by a common judgement. 2. The three accused appellants Dhanna, Sundar and Bishesar have been convicted under Section 325, 325/149, 147 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused appellants Ladu Ramkaran and Kana have convicted under Section 325/149, 323, 147 and 342 I. P. C. and each of them has been sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- under section 147 I. P. C. or in default of payment of fine, to further suffer three months R.1. Under Section 342 I.P.C. each of the accused has been sentenced to suffer two months R.I. The three accused appellants who have been convicted under Section 325 I.P.C. have been sentenced to under go three years R I. and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months R. I, Ail the accused appellants have been sentenced to undergo similar sentence under Section 325/149. I.P.C. Accused appellants Ladu, Kana and Ramkaran have been sentenced to under go three months R.I. under Section 323 IPC. All the substantive sentences of all the accused have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. The only prayer in the appeal is that the case of the accused persons should be dealt with either under section 360 Cr. P. C. or under the provisions of tie Prohibition of Offenders Act (for short the Act). It is not necessary to give the facts of the case in detail. It will suffice to state the facts in brief. It is said that a she goat of Dhanna accused appellant had been stolen and he suspected Kalu P.W.1. On May 8, 1975 one Pooran went to the house of Kalu and enquired of him about missing of the she goat but Kalu showed his ignorance. Pooran returned to his house. It is alleged that on the same day at about 2.30 p.m. all the accused armed with lathis went to the house of Kalu, P. W. 1, who was sitting outside his house. It is alleged that the accused appellants gave beating to Kalu and when Ramsukh P. W. 2, Hanumana deceased and Mangla arrived there, they too were beaten. It is alleged that on the same day at about 2.30 p.m. all the accused armed with lathis went to the house of Kalu, P. W. 1, who was sitting outside his house. It is alleged that the accused appellants gave beating to Kalu and when Ramsukh P. W. 2, Hanumana deceased and Mangla arrived there, they too were beaten. Hanumana later on died as a result of the injuries. A report of the incident was lodged in the police station. A case was registered and investigation was set in motion. 4. Dr. Daya Shankar Sharma, P. W. 9 examined the injuries of injured persons Kalu, Manglaram, Ramsukh, Gekhali wife of Kalu and Juhari wife of Baguta. The doctor found that each of the above named injured persons had 9, 4, 5,2 and injuries respectively. The two injuries of Kalu namely first on the left dorsum of hand and fingers and the third near root of index finger were grievous. The doctor advised for X-ray of chest of Ramsukh injured. 5. On conducting the autopsy of the dead body of Haumana, the doctor found that there were three external injuries, the first was a diffused confusion on whole of the skull on cutting there was a haematoma. On opening the skull he found that there were fractures of the left and right temporal and parietial bones. The other two injuries were on the right side of the shin and front of chest. 6. The accused persons were tried and they stand on a bare plea of denial. Dhanna accused set up a plea that a she goat was stolen and with the help of foot prints they went towards the house of Kalu. When they went to the house of Kalu, Kalu and Hanumana gave lathi blows to him as a result of which he became unconscious. He only regain consciousness when he had been taken to his house. He lodged a report about the missing of the she goat in the police station. But the accused did not examine any witness to show that he had received any injury. There is no medical report also which could show that the accused received any injury. 7. The learned Sessions Judge after trial convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid. But the accused did not examine any witness to show that he had received any injury. There is no medical report also which could show that the accused received any injury. 7. The learned Sessions Judge after trial convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellant is that the occurrence took place in the year 1975 and some of the accused persons are now aged about 60-70 years, the intention of the accused was not to cause death. Because the accused persons suspected that Kalu had committed theft of she goat of Dhanna, the occurrence took place. A perusal of the record shows that accused appellant Sundar was aged 60 years in the year 1976 when his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He is thus about 65 years now. Similarly Dhanna was aged 60 years and he too is aged 65 years. Accused Kana who was 65 years is now aged 70 years. Ladu is also aged about 60 years by now. Thus most of the accused appellants have reached the age of about 60 years. The accused persons had been in jail a few months as there was earlier a charge under section 302 I.P.C. against them. Though the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused persons of such offences, none of which was punishable with imprisonment of more than seven years but still the learned Sessions Judge did not deal their case either under Section 360 Cr. P. C. or under the provisions of the Act. Thus he has ignored the mandate contained in section 361 Cr.P.C. which requires that the court must consider the case of the accused if the case is such which can be so dealt with and if the court does not feel inclined to extend the benefit of the aforesaid provisions to the accused, then the court must record special reasons in his judgement, It is a clear illegality in the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge in as much as he has overlooked the mandatory provisions of law. What special reasons means with in the meaning of Section 361 Cr.P.C. has been dealt with by their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Bishnudeo v. State of W.B., AIR 1979, SC page 964 ). What special reasons means with in the meaning of Section 361 Cr.P.C. has been dealt with by their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Bishnudeo v. State of W.B., AIR 1979, SC page 964 ). In para 25 of the aforesaid judgement their Lordships observed : "In the context of section 360, the "special reason" contemplated by S. 361 must be such as to compel the Court to hold that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender after examining the matter with due regard to the age, character and antecedents of the offender and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. This is some indication by the Legislature that reformation and rehabilitation's of offenders, and not mere deterrence, are now among the foremost objects of the administration of criminal justice in our country. Section 361 and Section 354 (3) have both entered the Statute Book at the same time and they are part of the emerging picture of acceptance by the Indian Parliament of the new trends in criminology. We will not, therefore, be wrong in assuming that the personality of the offender as revealed by his age, character, antecedents and other as revealed by his age, character, antecedents and other circumstances and the tractability of the offender to reform must necessarily play the most prominent role in determining the sentence to be awarded. Special reasons must have some relation to these factors". After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, age of the accused and the fact that the accused persons have already undergone imprisonment and are on bail since the appeal was filed, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to deal with their case under section 4 of the Act and compensation can be awarded to the injured persons and to the wife if alive, or if not to other legal representative of deceased Hanumana. 8. In the result, I will allow this appeal in part. While maintaining the conviction of all the appellants for the offence for which they have been convicted, for the reasons already started earlier, it is hereby ordered that instead of sentencing them at once to any imprisonment they shall be released on each of them entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. While maintaining the conviction of all the appellants for the offence for which they have been convicted, for the reasons already started earlier, it is hereby ordered that instead of sentencing them at once to any imprisonment they shall be released on each of them entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court to appear and receive sentence during the period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. I will also direct that each of the accused appellants shall pay a sum of Rs. 50/- to each of the injured persons namely Kalu, Mangla and Ramsukh. Each of the accused appellant shall further pay Rs. 50/- to the legal representative of the deceased Hanumana. Thus each of the accused appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 200/-for being paid to the three injured and the legal representatives as compensation under section 5 of the Act. Two months time is allowed to the appellants to furnish the bonds in the trial court and to deposit the amount of compensation. As and when the amount of compensation is deposited, the trial court shall give notice to the injured persons, to the wife of Hanumana, if alive or otherwise to the other legal representatives to receive the amount of compensation.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******