JUDGMENT 1. - These two criminal appeals No. 357/74 filed by the accused-appellants and 812/1975 filed by the State of Rajasthan, arise out of a common judgment dated May 18, 1974, delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City and as such they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that a quarrel took place between the parties on 17th June, 1973. During the course of that occurrence Ram Bharosey, Kailash Chandra, Brij Mohan and Babu Shyam sustained injuries on the side of the complainant whereas on the side of the accused Mohan Singh, Kishan Singh, Gopal Singh and Shiv Singh sustained injuries. Shiv Singh succumbed to his injuries whereas rest of the injured are appellants before us. All the three accused appellants in Appeal No. 357/1974 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City under Sections 307, 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after appreciation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that a case of common intention for causing injuries to the members of the complainant party was not made out and each accused could be held responsible for the injuries caused by him. He further held that there was cogent and reliable evidence on record to hold as to which of the accused inflicted the grievous hurt on the person of Ram Bharosey. On the basis of the above findings he acquitted all the appellants of all the charges except under Section 323 IPC. They were convicted under Section 323 IPC and each one of them was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment by his judgment dated May 18, 1974. Being aggrieved with the above judgment both the parties have come up in appeal. 3. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State at considerable length and have examined the judgment of the trial Court on the line of arguments advanced before us. Admittedly both the parties sustained injuries during the course of same quarrel. Nothing has been urged before us on the basis of which it can be said that the members of the accused party formed a preconcert to attack the members of the complainant party. There is always a distinction between a common intention and similar intention. The distinction is thin but real. Nothing has been urged before us on the basis of which it can be said that the members of the accused party formed a preconcert to attack the members of the complainant party. There is always a distinction between a common intention and similar intention. The distinction is thin but real. The common intention can develop during the course of an occurrence. But there has to be content material on the basis of which the court can arrive at that finding and upheld an accused vicariously liable for the act of the other accused by invoking Section 34 IPC. We are of the opinion that the learned trial Judge was correct in holding that the prosecution has not been able to make out a case by which it can be said that the accused formed a common intention to commit assault on the person of the above noted injured viz., Ram Bharosey, Kailash Chandra, Brij Mohan and Babu Shyam. 4. No doubt Ram Bharosey sustained a grievous hurt on the index finger of his left hand. A grievous hurt on the index finger cannot be said to be dangerous to life or to have been caused to cause death as such none of them can be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. There is no reliable evidence on record as to which of the three accused appellants inflicted index finger injury on the person of Ram Bharosey as such none of them could be convicted under Section 325 IPC also. Thus, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan being without merit, deserves to be dismissed. 5. As regards the appeal filed by the accused-appellants we are not required to consider detail the evidence and circumstances brought forth by the prosecution on the record. As the learned counsel for the appellant has rightly conceded that there is sufficient evidence on record to hold that each of the appellants participated in the assault in which the above noted injured persons from the side of the complainant suffered injuries at the hands of the accused. The only question seriously pressed before us is regarding quantum of sentence. 6. The occurrence is of the year 1973 and we are in the year 1981. A period of 8 years has elapsed in between the commission of the offence and hearing of this appeal. The only question seriously pressed before us is regarding quantum of sentence. 6. The occurrence is of the year 1973 and we are in the year 1981. A period of 8 years has elapsed in between the commission of the offence and hearing of this appeal. The accused have already remained in jail for sometime during the course of investigation and inquiry. They also suffered injuries during the course of the same occurrence. Keeping in view the nature and atinuating circumstances of the offence and the fact that sending them to jail for a short term imprisonment after so long a time of their release is not likely to have any beneficial effect upon them. Instead of reforming them there is a danger of their adopting a life of crime being in the company of hardened criminals who might happen to be the inmates of the jail. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is extended to the accused appellants. On behalf of the State it was not controverted that none of the accused is not a previous convict, or this Court can grant the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act on the existing material on the record without remitting the case to the trial Court and without seeking any further information from the Probation Officer. 8. Accordingly we affirm the convictions of the accused-appellants under Section 323 IPC but set aside the sentence of imprisonment and direct each one of them to enter into a bond with one surety in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- to appear in the trial court and to receive the sentence whenever called upon to do so within a period of six months and during that period to maintain the peace and be of good behaviour. The trial Court is directed to take necessary bonds from the appellants and necessary surety bonds to its satisfaction. The bail bonds will enure till the above noted directions are carried out and shall be deemed to have been cancelled after the expiry of the directions being carried out. The trial Court is directed to take necessary bonds from the appellants and necessary surety bonds to its satisfaction. The bail bonds will enure till the above noted directions are carried out and shall be deemed to have been cancelled after the expiry of the directions being carried out. The accused appellants are allowed two months' time to file the bonds failing which they will undergo the sentence awarded to them by the trial Court and the concerned court will take necessary steps for sending them to jail. 9. In the result, the appeal No. 812/1975 filed by the Stale of Rajasthan, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal No. 357/1974 is partly allowed. Their convictions under Section 323 IPC are maintained and instead of sending them to jail they are given the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act as indicated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******