Judgment SHRIMAL J. ( 1 ) REPRESENTED appeal No. 50 of 1981 filed by accused Dinesh and represented appeal No. 10 of 1981 filed by accused Pradeep are directed against the same judgment and relate to the same occurrence, as such they are being disposed of by a common judgment. ( 2 ) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment dated December 12, 1980 of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under: (1) Dinesh: Under Section 302 I. P. C. Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- Under Section 324 I. P. C. One years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. (2) Pradeep Under Section 302/34 I. P. C. Imprisonment for Me and a fine of Rs. 200/ -. ( 3 ) WE are not required to deal in detail the evidence on record, because the learned counsel for the appellants after arguing the case for some time rightly conceded that there is evidence on record to hold that the occurrence did take place at the time and place mentioned by the prosecution. He further agrees that accused Dinesh inflicted injury on the person of Vinod Kumar which proved to be fatal. However, we have looked into the evidence. No doubt there is material contradiction on the point of injuries between the statements of the eye-witnesses and the Doctor and independent witnesses have not been examined, Dl;lt it can be safely said that at least one injury was inflicted by Dinesh on the person of Vinod Kumar, which ultimately led to his death. ( 4 ) THE only point seriously pressed before us is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed an error of law in convicting accused Dinesh and Pradeep under Sections 302 and 302/34 I. P. C. respectively. They could at the most be convicted under Section 304 Part II, I. P. C. ( 5 ) THERE is evidence on record that there was severe exchange of abuses between the parties preceding to the incident. During the course of exchange of hot words tempo must have risen on both the sides. The accused could not have known that the deceased would meet them in the way. It appears that the crime was committed without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion. During the course of exchange of hot words tempo must have risen on both the sides. The accused could not have known that the deceased would meet them in the way. It appears that the crime was committed without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion. It cannot be said that the appellants have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Thus the case comes within Exception (4) and the offence committed was culpable homicide not amounting to murder. As such the appellants could not have been convicted under Section 302 or Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. ( 6 ) NOW remains to be considered whether the offence, which they committed, falls within the first part or the second part of Section 304, Indian Penal Code. As the act appears to have been done in the heat of passion, but the accused must have known that it was likely to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and thus the offence was within Part II of Section 304, Indian Penal Code. ( 7 ) WE, therefore, Set aside the conviction and sentence of accused-appellants Dinesh under Section 302; Indian Penal Code and that of accused-appellant Pradeep under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and convict them under Section 304/il and Section 3o4part II read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code respectively. The conviction of accused appellants Dinesh under Section 324, Indian Penal Code is maintained. ( 8 ) A perusal of the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code shows that both the appellants were below 21 years of age on the date of commission of the offence as well as on the date of awarding of the sentence by the trial Court. As such the question which squarely needs consideration is whether they are entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956. The object of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, broadly speaking is to see that the young offenders are not sent to jail because of a grave risk to their attitude to life to which they are likely to be exposed as a result of their close association with the hardened and habitual criminals, who may happen to be the inmates of jail. Their stay in jail might well attract them towards a life of crime instead of reforming them. This would clearly do them more harm than good, and would perhaps also be prejudicial to the larger interests of the society as a whole. It is for this reason that the mandatory injunction against imposition of sentence of imprisonment has been embodied in Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958. This mandate is inspired by the desire to keep the young delinquent away from the possibility of association or close contact with hardened criminals and their evil influence. This section, therefore, deserves to be liberally construed so that its operation may be effective and beneficial to the young offenders who are prone more easily to be led astray by the influence of bad company. Reference in this connection may be made to Daulat Ram v. The State of Haryana. In the cases in hand, keeping in view the fact that the accused appellants have already remained in jail nearly for a period of more than three years and nine months and besides that it was not a premeditated offence and the unfortunate incident was the result of a sudden quarrel and impulse, we consider it proper to give them the benefit of the provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. On behalf of the State of Rajasthan it has also been conceded that this Court can make an order under the Probation of Offenders Act on the existing material on record, because none of the two accused is a previous convict. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY we convict accused Dinesh under Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code and Section 324, Indian Penal Code and accused Pradeep under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, but set aside the sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed upon them by the trial Court and direct that they be released on entering into a bond with one surety in the sum of Rs. 2000/- each to appear in the trial Court and receive the sentence whenever caned upon to do so by the trial Court within a period of one year and during that period to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 2000/- each to appear in the trial Court and receive the sentence whenever caned upon to do so by the trial Court within a period of one year and during that period to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to take the necessary bonds from the appellants and necessary surety bonds from the sureties to his satisfaction. The appellants bail bonds will ensure till the time these directions are carried out, after which they will be deemed to have been cancelled. On execution of the bonds the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) will inform the jail authorities to release both the accused immediately. ( 10 ) IF the accused-appellants fail to execute the bail bonds, each of them will suffer four yearst rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code and Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code respectively. No separate sentence is awarded under Section 324, Indian Penal Code to accused-appellant Dinesh. ( 11 ) IT is, however, made clear that the accused-appellants shall be entitled to benefit of Section 428, Criminal Procedure Code, in the event of their not furnishing the bail bonds, and the period of their detention during investigation, inquiry or trial shall be set off against the term of imprisonment awarded by this Court. ( 12 ) THE appeals are partly allowed as indicated above. Appeals partly allowed.