JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Four petitioners faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable u/s 341/323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (in short, 'IPC'). They were found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 323 read with Section 34,IPC, convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months each and fine of Rs. 200/- each with a default sentence of one month's simple imprisonment. Out of the fine amount if realised Rs. 300/- was to be paid: to the three injured persons examined as PWs 1,2 and 3. 2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is that one Jayaram Kumbhar (PW 1) and accused Lalu Majhi entered into a contract pursuant to which the latter was to sell some lands for Rs. 5000/- to the former. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 5000/- was paid. Subsequently, accused Lalu returned Rs. 3,750/- and promised to pay the balance and to that effect executed a hand-note. The amount was to be paid back on 4-6-1988. Accordingly Jayaram and his two nephews namely, Abhiram Kumbhar and Jogeswar Kumbhar, PWs 2 and 3 respectively, went to the house of Lalu to receive the balance amount. The accused persons assaulted Jayaram and his nephews. Several persons witnessed the occurrence. Jayaram received bleeding injuries on his forehead, hands and legs.. Abhiram sustained injuries on both sides of his head and leg. Jogeswar sustained injuries on his head and hand. Jayaram first went to Tikrapara Out Post, but since he found nobody there, went to. Saintala Police Station in a jeep of one Nathia Patra and lodged a written report there. The report was treated as First- information-report on the basis of which investigation was undertaken and the injured persons were sent for medical examination and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted. 3. The accused persons took the plea of denial of the prosecution case and false implication. 4. Six witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case, out of whom PWs 1, 2 and 3 were stated to be eye witnesses, who had sustained injuries. The learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Titilagarh, held the evidence to be credible and found the accused persons guilty as aforesaid. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh maintained the conviction and the sentence. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Titilagarh, held the evidence to be credible and found the accused persons guilty as aforesaid. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh maintained the conviction and the sentence. 5. In support of the revision application, the learned counsel for petitioners stated that the evidence even if accepted in toto does not implicate Lalu Majhi and he has been falsely implicated. According to him, delayed despatch of the first-information-report is indicative of the fact that there was false implication. Additionally it is submitted that certain persons though named as eye witnesses in the charge-sheet were not examined No explanation has been offered by the prosecution for their non-examination. It is alternatively submitted that the occurrence took place long back, and this being a case of run-of-the-mill category, the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short, the 'Probation Act') should have been extended to the accused persons by the Courts below. The learned counsel for State, however, supported the judgment of conviction and sentence. 6. From the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3, it is seen that the assaults have been attributed to accused Badan, Pratap and Prate. While Pratap and Prate are stated to have assaulted PWs 1 and 2 each, Prate in addition is stated to have assaulted PW 3, and Badan to have assaulted PW 3 alone. There is no material to show that accused Lalu Majhi assaulted any one of the aforesaid PWs 1, 2 and 3. 7. The question is whether Section 34, IPC can be pressed into service. Section 34 refers to a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all. It embodies the common-sense principle that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually. Constructive liability may arise in three well defined cases. A person may be constructively liable for an offence which he did not actually commit by reason of : (i) the common intention of all to commit such an offence (Sec. 34); (ii) his being a member of a conspiracy to commit 6uch an offence (Sec.120A); (iii) his being a member of an unlawful assembly, the members whereof knew that an offence was likely to be committed (Sec. 149). The section is framed to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between the acts of individual members of a party or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them.. The apparent reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence of accomplices gives encouragement, support and protection to the person actually committing the act. Common intention implies acting in concert, existence of a pre-arranged plan which is to be proved either from conduct or from circumstances or from any incriminating facts. The sine qua non for application of Section 34 is existence of pre-concert. In the case at hand so far as accused Lalu Majhi is concerned, the evidence is inadequate to show any pre-concert. Therefore, his conviction u/s 323 read with Section 34. IPC cannot be maintained. 8. So far as other three are concerned, the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 clearly shows that knowingly they assaulted the respective victims on the basis of pre-concert. It has been proved from the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 that when they arrived at the house of Lalu Majhi, accused Badan, Pratap and Prate came out in a group armed with lathis and started assaulting them. Their conduct is sufficient to show pre-concert. The learned counsel for petitioners has stressed on the non- examination of Puran Kumbhar, Narayan Dip and Talmalia Dip. According to him, these persons were named in the charge-sheet, and no reason has been given as to why they were not examined. Non-examination of witnesses named in the charge-sheet can be basis of a suspicion on the premises that the best available witnesses are to be examined. Where, however, the evidence of other witnesses who are examined is credible and cogent, mere non-examination of some who are named in the charge-sheet cannot be a ground to totally discard the evidence of other witnesses, and to make prosecution version vulnerable. The learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the injured persons are interested witnesses, and therefore, their evidence should have been discarded The term 'interested witness 'normally means a person interested in the prosecution of another. No material was placed during trial to show as to why PWs 1,2 and 3 would falsely implicate the accused persons No foundation has been laid for the allegation of interestedness, 9. No material was placed during trial to show as to why PWs 1,2 and 3 would falsely implicate the accused persons No foundation has been laid for the allegation of interestedness, 9. It has also been submitted that the delayed despatch of the first information report to the learned SDJM, Titilagarh should be considered a suspicious circumstance. As observed by the apex, Court in Balaka Singh and Others Vs. The State of Punjab the delayed despatch of the first-information-report in all cases cannot be construed to be a suspicious circumstance. Where there are materials to show that the first-information-report is a fabricated one, certainly the Court can take note of the delayed despatch. That per se is not a circumstance to render the prosecution case valnerable. In view of credible and cogent evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 which has been elaborately analysed by the Courts below I find no reason to differ from the conclusions of guilt arrived at by the Courts below. 10. The residual question is whether the benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act, 19E8 (in short, the 'Probation Act') should be extended to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate did not extend the benefit on the ground that the accused persons had assaulted the injured persons when they had gone to claim money and therefore, the action is deplorable and deserves no leniency. White dealing with a case whether probation is to be granted, the modern trend of corrective measures for accused persons and the stress on reformation cannot be lost sight of. Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Cr PC') throw sufficient light on the legislative intent to lean in favour of reformation. Looking into the age, and antecedents of the offender and to the trivial nature of the offence which occurred nearly five years back, in my view instead of sentencing them to jail custody, it would be appropriate if they are released on probation on each one of them entering into a bond with one surety for Rs. 3000/-, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of three years, and to maintain peace and be of good behaviour in the meantime. The bail bond so far as petitioner Lalu Majhi is concerned be discharged. 3000/-, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of three years, and to maintain peace and be of good behaviour in the meantime. The bail bond so far as petitioner Lalu Majhi is concerned be discharged. The other three petitioners are directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Titilagarh on 25th March, 1994 for executing the bond. The criminal revision is allowed in part.