JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.6.81 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagour convicting the first appellant Ghisaram and 7th appellant Rawatram of offence under Sec, 325 IPC. Both of them sentenced to 2 years R.l. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment to further undergo 3 months' R.l. They have also been convicted for kindered offences as under Section 147, 447 IPC. The other accused appellants except appellant nos. 5 & 6 have been convicted of offence under Section 325/149 IPC. They have been sentenced to 4 months R.l. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment to further undergo 1 months R.l. 5th and 6th appellants have been given benefit of provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. These appellants have also been convicted for the kindered offences as under Section 147 & 323 IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that on 14.6.80 at about 11.15 a.m. one Shri Sohanlal lodged the F.I.R. vide Ex.R 10 at the Police Station Ladnu to the effect that in the morning at about 8 a.m. while his father was sitting on the platform of the shop, the accused Rawatram, Jaichand, Choturam, Shivdatt, Bhanwarlal, Ghisaram and Bhagirath etc. unlawfully assembled, armed with lathis arrived there. The accused Rawatram gave a lathi blow on the head of his father PW 6 Gangaram. The accused Ghisaram also raised a lathi blow to assault Gangaram but, it was warded of and it fell on his hand. Thereafter, all the accused persons gave beatings to Gangaram, on account of which, he sustained serious injuries. He became unconscious and fell down. It is further alleged that the informant PW 8 Sohanlal when intervened, Ghisaram also assault him causing injuries on the fingers and thigh. The motive provided is that the complainant had purchased the piece of land from Sohanlal, they were in peaceful possession of the same. There was dispute with respect to the said land between the accused persons and the complainant parties. On this information, Police registered the case of offence under Section 307, 325, 323, 147, 149 & 448 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. After usual investigation, Police laid charge-sheet against the 8 accused persons. 3. The accused appellants were charged for the aforesaid offences. On this information, Police registered the case of offence under Section 307, 325, 323, 147, 149 & 448 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. After usual investigation, Police laid charge-sheet against the 8 accused persons. 3. The accused appellants were charged for the aforesaid offences. They denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 9 witnesses and produced certain documents. The accused persons in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded that the entire evidence against them is false and fabricated. The defence also examined 5 witnesses in support of their case. 4. The trial Judge relying on the testimony-of the 2 injured eye witnesses namely, PW 6 Gangaram and PW 8 Sohanlal supported by an independent eye-witness namely PW 5 Hanumandas and further corroboration being provided by the medical evidence of PW 1 Dr. Renuka Choudhary and PW 3 Dr. Vijay Singh Godawat found the charges proved against the appellants. Accordingly, they have been convicted and sentenced as stated above. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I have read the statement of PW 6 Gangaram. He stated that Rawataram has given a lathi blow on his head. The another blow was given by Ghisaram. He further stated that when he fell down, the other accused persons belaboured him. The statement of PW 8 Sohanlal is almost in the same line so as the statement of PW 5 Hanumandas. Nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination on the basis of which, the testimony of these witnesses could be disbelieved. The statement of this witness is also supported by an independent witness PW 5 Hanumandas., PW 1 Dr. Renuka Choudhary has stated that she examined Gangaram on 14.6.80 and found following injuries , 1. Haematoma 9 cms. x 7 cms. on the tempro parital region. 2. Lacerated wound 1 1/2 cms. x 1/4 cm.xl cm. on the middle portion of injury No. 1. 3. Lacerated wound 11/2 cms.x1/4 cm.61/4 cm. on palate. 4. Contusion 12 cms.x2 cms. on Lt. scapular region. 5. Contusion 12 cms.x2 cms.x51/2 cms. below injury no. 4. 6. Constusion 14 cms.x21/2 cms. extending vertically down from 5th dorsal vertebra. 7. Contusion 6 cms.x6 cms. on the Lt. metacorpophangus joint. Injury No. 1 and 7 were found to be grievous. All the injuries are caused by blunt object. She proved the injury report Ex.R 1. scapular region. 5. Contusion 12 cms.x2 cms.x51/2 cms. below injury no. 4. 6. Constusion 14 cms.x21/2 cms. extending vertically down from 5th dorsal vertebra. 7. Contusion 6 cms.x6 cms. on the Lt. metacorpophangus joint. Injury No. 1 and 7 were found to be grievous. All the injuries are caused by blunt object. She proved the injury report Ex.R 1. She also examined Sohanlal on the same day and found following injuries : 1. Lacerated wound 1/2 cm. x 1/2cm. palmer space in between middle and ring finger. 2. Complaining of pain, no mark of injury seen, no swelling. Both the injuries are simple in nature caused by blunt object. She has proved injury report Ex.R 2. Dr. Vijay Singh radiologically examined both the injured. He has proved X-Ray reports Ex.R 4 & Ex.R 5. He has opined that the injury on the head of Gangaram was grievous. Thus, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel that the offence under Section 325 IPC is not punishable beyond 7 years of imprisonment and in view of his, the provisions of section 360 Cr.P.C. are attracted. There does not exist any special reason which should deprive the appellants from the benefit of provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. R.K. Soni, learned counsel for the complainants submits that PW 6 Gangaram is an old man of 60 years and as such the accused persons are not entitled to be given benefit of provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. I find it a fit case in which the appellant Nos. 1 to 4 and 7th & 8th are entitled to the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the conviction of the appellants for grievous offences is confirmed. However, the appellants Ghisaram, Kishanaram, Choturam, Shivdat, Rawatram and Jaichand are directed to be released on probation on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and one surety bond of like amount to the satisfaction of trial court with undertaking to receive the sentence as and when cell upon to do so and to keep peace and good behaviour during the period of one year. 5000/- each (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and one surety bond of like amount to the satisfaction of trial court with undertaking to receive the sentence as and when cell upon to do so and to keep peace and good behaviour during the period of one year. The appellants are granted two months time for furnishing the bail bonds.With the modification on the point of sentence, the appeal stands dismissed.Appeal Dismissed Except Modification In Sentences. *******