K. C. BHARGAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24-2-1984 passed by the II Addi. Sessions Judge; Unnao convicting the appellants, under Section 324 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and sentencing them to undergo R. I. for one year. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case briefly stated are that one Surya Prakash, younger brother of the complainant, who was aged about 7-8 years, was playing on 16-4-1977 at about 5. 30 p. m. At that time Narendra Singh son of Yadunath Singh assaulted Surya Prakash and tore his shirt. Thereafter Surya Prakash reached his home weeping. The complainant was present at that time. He and his brother Surya Prakash went to the door of Yadunath Singh. Yadunath Singhs uncle Manohar Singh was sitting at the door. When the complainant made protest to him about the assault, he started abusing the complainant. On this complainant objected. Then Manohar Singh asked the complainant to go away otherwise he would be killed. In the meantime accused Manohar Singh gave a call to other accused persons to bring their gun and kill him. Upon this they came with their weapons. Raj Bahadur fired a shot in the air. On hearing the sound of fire, from complainantts side Ghasiram Nanha, Jagannath, Roopan and Putti Lal arrived at the place of occurrences. There upon all the four accused persons challenged them and asked that the complainant and his brother should be killed. Then they fired serveal shots causing injuries to them. ( 3 ) A report of the incident was lodged and after investigation charge sheet was submitted. On medical examination the doctor found as many as six injuries on the person of Surya Bali (complainant) three injuries each on the persons of Ghasiram, Nanha and jagnnath arid two injuries were found or) the person of Roopan. ( 4 ) AFTER considering the entire evidence of record, learned trial court gave benefit of First Offenders Probation Act to Muneshwar Singh. Rest of the appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants as well as learned A. G. A. have been heard: Learned counsel for the appellants, has argued that at the time of trial the appellants were 65-75 years of age as mentioned in the judgment of the trial court. Rest of the appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants as well as learned A. G. A. have been heard: Learned counsel for the appellants, has argued that at the time of trial the appellants were 65-75 years of age as mentioned in the judgment of the trial court. After about 13 years their ages increased between 78-88 years. He has argued that these three-appellants should, also be given benefit of First Offenders Probation Act. ( 6 ) AFTER considering the circumstances of case this Court is of the view that after lapse of such a long period it would not be desirable to send the appellants to jail particularly when they are neither previous convicts nor they have bad antecedents and they are quite old ranging between 78 to 88 years. Therefore, they are entitled to be given benefit of Section 4 (2) of the U. P. First Offencers Probation Act. ( 7 ) THE appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants is maintained but instead of sending them at once to jail they are ordered to be released on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C. J. M. concerned for a period of one year o keep peace and be of good behaviour during such period and to appear arid receive the sentence imposed by the trial court when called upon during the said period or if they fail to furnish the bonds within three months from to day under Section 4 (2) of the D. P. First Offenders Probation: Act. Appeal allowed partly. .