JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 30-3-1976 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur by appellant Chaina who has been convicted and sentenced under sections 211 and 193 I.P.C. 2. The relevant facts are these; On 5-10-1972 the appellant made a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate Jodhpur District against Ladu-ram. Bhinyaram, Gorliharam. Thanaram, Ranaram and Senaram under sections 302, 201, 120B and 147 I.P.C. It is alleged in the complaint that on 15-8-72 Asuram the husband of the appellant was murdered by the aforesaid persons. Thereafter in the night the accused took away the dead body of Asuram. The appellant examined herself in support of the case and gave statement Ex. P.2. The accused were duly committed to the court of Sessions. During the trial the appellant was examined as prosecution witness No. 4 but she resided from her complaint as well as the statement under Section 209 Cr. P.C. and further said that her earlier statement and the complaint were false and she was made to falsely depose under some undue influence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused and directed the prosecution of the appellant under sections 211 and 193 I.P,C. and filed the complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur, who committed the case for trial to Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2 Jodhpur. Prosecution proved that Chaina filed complaint Ex. P. 1 and made the statement Ex. P.2 in support of it, the statement given by the witness during the sessions trial of murder of her husband is Ex, P.3. In that statement the appellant clearly stated that a complaint Ex. P. 1 and her statement Ex. P.2 were false to her knowledge. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, convicted the appellant in the manner stated above. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The only point argued before me is that now so many years after the incident. Mst. Chaina should not be sent to jail. She very foolishly under the influence of some other persons made the report and the statement Ex. P.2. At the earliest, the appellant brought to the notice of the court that she had been misled and unduly influenced in making the false report and the statement. My attention was drawn to her application dated 25-10-72 and her affidavit Ex. She very foolishly under the influence of some other persons made the report and the statement Ex. P.2. At the earliest, the appellant brought to the notice of the court that she had been misled and unduly influenced in making the false report and the statement. My attention was drawn to her application dated 25-10-72 and her affidavit Ex. D.2 and an affidavit Ex. D. 3 of her father. I have gone through these defence documents and it does appear that the appellant was misled and unduly influenced in making a false report and the statement. In the circumstances though the conviction of the appellant is maintained under sections 193 and 211, I.P.C. but the sentence awarded to her are set aside as I feel that she should be released on probation. 4. The appeal is therefore, dismissed but it is directed that the appellant be released on probation on her entering into a bond for Rs. 2000/- with a surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence when called upon during two years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The bonds shall be furnished within a period of eight weeks in the trial court.Appeal partly allowed. *******