JUDGMENT 1. - All the appellants and two other accused persons-Netram and Mohini wen tried for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 308, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC Appellants Dayachand and Ramsingh were also tried for the offence under Section 342 IPC. The case abated against Netram and -Mohini on their death during that course of trial. The above appellants No. 1 to 5 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 31.5.93 whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 325/149 IPC (sentenced to undergo 5 years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year S.I.), under Section 324/149 IPC (Sentenced to under one year RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo two months S.I.), 323/149 IPC (to pay fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to undergo 7 days SI), 148 IPC (Sentenced to undergo two months RI and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 14 days S.I.), 147 IPC (sentenced to undergo one month R.I. and Rs. 100/- fine or in default to undergo 7 days S.I.). Appellant Ramsingh was also convicted for the offence under Section 342 IPC and sentenced to undergo one month R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to undergo 7 days S.I. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and 1,000/- was awarded to injured Suratsingh and Suzana respectively. 2. I do not deem it necessary to state here the facts of the case and evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellants have not argued the case on merits i.e. on the point of conviction of the appellants under various offences as stated above. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued only on the point of sentence that the appellants may be released on probation instead of passing any sentence against them. It is submitted that the incident took place in the spur of moment about the construction intended to be done by injured Shri Surat Singh for which his father Net Ram requested not to make construction as the land was not of his share. All the appellants are closed relatives. Appellants Ramsingh and Dayachand are real brothers of injured Suratsingh. Appellant Santosh is a wife of Ramsingh. All the appellants are closed relatives. Appellants Ramsingh and Dayachand are real brothers of injured Suratsingh. Appellant Santosh is a wife of Ramsingh. Appellant Satyaveer is a brother-in-law of Ramsingh. Appellant Om Prakash is a neighbour of the parties. Other accused person Net Ram was the father of injured Suratsingh and the appellant Ramsingh and Mohini Devi, the accused, was mother. There was no previous enimity between the parties. Furthermore, the appellants and the complainant injured Suratsingh and Smt. Mohini compromised the matter and submitted applications for seeking permission to record the compromise but the applications were rejected on 10.11.95 on the ground that offences under Sections 147 and 148 IPC are non compoundable and therefore the conviction and sentence awarded to all the accused persons cannot be spitted. It is urged that the parties have compromised their dispute as they are close relatives and further litigation will spoil their relations. They are living in the same `Guwadi'. The incident took place on 1.3.88 and it will not be proper in the interest of justice to send the appellants to jail now after more than 8 years. 3. The appellants have also remained in jail. Appellant Ramsingh suffered imprisonment from 5.3.88 to 13.4.88 and again from 31.5.93 to 15.7.3. He is in jail from 14.12.94 till today i.e. one year 9 months and 16 days. Appellant Dayachand remained in jail from 4.5.88 to 12.5.88 and from 31.5.93 to 15.7.93 i.e. 55 days. Appellant Smt. Santosh suffered imprisonment from 3.3.88 to 11.3.88 and from 31.5.93 to 2.7.93 i.e. 42 days. Similarly appellant Omprakash remained in jail from 4.5.88 to 12.5.88 and 31.5.93 to 15.7.93 about 55 days and appellant Satyaveer also remained in jail 55 days. It is, therefore, argued that in view of all the above facts of the case, the appellants may be released on probation. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the above contention. He has argued that incident did not occur in the spur of moment. There are as many as 22 injuries on the person of injured Suratsingh inflicted by blunt and sharp weapons. Therefore while giving the benefit of probation the amount of compensation should be enhanced. 5. I have considered the rival contentions on the point of sentence. He has argued that incident did not occur in the spur of moment. There are as many as 22 injuries on the person of injured Suratsingh inflicted by blunt and sharp weapons. Therefore while giving the benefit of probation the amount of compensation should be enhanced. 5. I have considered the rival contentions on the point of sentence. Having regard to all the above facts of the case and after considering the judgments cited before me 1991 Cr.L.R. 732, (Shiv Prasad v. State of Rajasthan), 1985 Cr.L.R. (SC) 285, 1979 RCC 64, 1976 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 650 , I am of the view that the appellants should be given benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and I do not find any reason to enhance the amount of compensation. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants by the impugned judgment as stated above under all the offences is hereby maintained. However, instead of serving out the sentence passed against them, the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 is extended to all the appellants that they he released, if not required in any other case, on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- and surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu with the stipulation therein to maintain peace and he of good behaviour for the period of two years and to undergo sentence passed against them whenever called upon by the court to do so. Each appellant shall pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the injured Surat Singh and Rs. 200/- by each appellant to Smt. Suzana. The appellants arc given two months' time to deposit compensation in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu. In view of the above facts of the case, the conviction shall not affect the career and service of the appellants Satyaveer and Ramsingh. Appellant Ramsingh shall he released from jail alter furnishing the surety bonds.Appeal partly allowed - Conviction not to affect career of appellants. *******