Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. The learned Judicial magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur, vide his order dated 13.3.1987, convicted Teja Singh under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Garib Singh, Ram Singh and Balbir Singh were convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2-1/2 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each. In default of payment of fine each of them was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Garib Singh was also convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months whereas Teja Singh, Balbir Singh and Ram Singh were convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. All the substantive sentence of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. However, in appeal filed by the aforesaid persons, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide his order dated 23.9.1988, acquitted Balbir Singh and Ram Singh whereas the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2-1/2 years awarded to Teja Singh and Garib Singh under Section 326 and 326/34 I.P.C. was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and the sentence awarded to both of them under Section 324 and 324/34 IPC was, however, maintained. The sentence of fine was maintained. 2. Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioners, namely, Garib Singh and Teja Singh have filed the present revision petition. 3. In day to day life petty incidents take place. Many a time the people forget and many a time they remember and take revenge. However, in the case in hand, on 21.1.1982, at about 7 A.M. one Puran Singh along with his son Mal Singh was removing Roori (manure) in front of his house situated in village Sohelewala within the area of Police Station, Jalalabad, in order to clear the passage. In the meantime, Budh Singh had also come there. However, in the case in hand, on 21.1.1982, at about 7 A.M. one Puran Singh along with his son Mal Singh was removing Roori (manure) in front of his house situated in village Sohelewala within the area of Police Station, Jalalabad, in order to clear the passage. In the meantime, Budh Singh had also come there. Garib Singh and Teja Singh petitioners armed with Gandasis, Ram Singh armed with a stick (dang) and Balbir Singh armed with a licenced gun came there and obstructed the removal of Roori. They also hurled abuses to Puran Singh. On hearing raula Sant Kaur wife of Puran Singh also came there and asked the accused party not to hurl abuses. On the lalkara raised by Balbir Singh and Teja Singh, Garib Singh gave a gandasi blow to Puran Singh but Sant Kaur intervened and the blow fell on her head while Teja Singh gave a Gandasi blow to Sant Kaur hitting her on her left wrist. The other two persons namely Ram Singh and Balbir Singh kept standing on the scene of occurrence when the blows were being given by their companions. The witnesses raised an alarm to desist the petitioners from causing any more blows and because of this, the petitioners ran away from the scene of occurrence. The injured Sant kaur was removed to the hospital where she was medico legally examined by Dr. Amarjit Singh, P.W.1 and the following injuries were found on her person; (1) There was an incised wound 4 cm x 1 /2 cm on the right parietal area directed anterior posterior bone deep 9 cm from the right pinna of ear. Bleeding on pressure was present. X-ray was advised. (2) There was an incised wound 4 cm x 1 /2 cm bone deep on the dorsal aspect of left arm 4 cms from the wrist. Fresh bleeding was present on pressure, movement of the wrist was very painful and restricted. X-ray was advised. Copy of the medico legal report is Ex. PC. After receipt of X- ray report injury No. 1 was declared simple whereas injury No. 2 was found to be grievous. 4 On receipt of the medico legal report in the Police Station, ASI Jagdish Lal went to the hospital and as Sant Kaur was unfit to make a statement, he recorded the statement of Puran Singh Ex. PC. After receipt of X- ray report injury No. 1 was declared simple whereas injury No. 2 was found to be grievous. 4 On receipt of the medico legal report in the Police Station, ASI Jagdish Lal went to the hospital and as Sant Kaur was unfit to make a statement, he recorded the statement of Puran Singh Ex. PF and on its basis formal FIR Ex. PW4-B was recorded at the Police station. 5. The petitioner along with their companions were put to trial and they claimed that there was party function in the village as well as amongst the parties to this litigation. It was also stated that they were innocent and were involved falsely. They produced three witnesses in defence and a copy of the judgment Ex. DY. It was being claimed that they were involved at the instance of one Zora Singh. 6. On the testimony of Sant Kaur P.W.2 and Puran Singh, P.W.3, the learned trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioners and Ram Singh and Balbir Singh as indicated above. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the statement of Sant Kaur P.W. 2 was belated one and the said statement could have been recorded earlier but once she was declared unfit to make a statement, the police did not record her statement as she was not able to speak. It was also being claimed that the story set up by the prosecution that there was no passage to the house of Puran Singh was not believable. Even the evidence led in defence could not upset the story regarding the removal of. Roori by Puran Singh, P.W. 3. Such party happenings do take place in ordinary life and there is nothing unusual. The injuries on the person of the injured could not be manipulated nor are self-inflicted nor was there any such motive to cause injuries to Sant Kaur who was a house wife. The version of the prosecution which is natural, probable and convincing, has been fully proved beyond shadow of doubt and it has rightly been affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court against the petitioners. As merely a lalkara was attributed to Ram Singh and Balbir Singh and they have been rightly acquitted by the lower appellate Court. 8. The version of the prosecution which is natural, probable and convincing, has been fully proved beyond shadow of doubt and it has rightly been affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court against the petitioners. As merely a lalkara was attributed to Ram Singh and Balbir Singh and they have been rightly acquitted by the lower appellate Court. 8. The occurrence in the present case took place on 21.1.1982 and thereafter there has been no incident between the parties and one feels that the parties have come to a peace and there has been forgetting and forgiving. When short sentence of two years is awarded, may be for an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code but still the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act would be attracted. In such a case if the offenders are sent to Jail to serve the remaining period of sentence, this may revive the bad blood between the parties and precipitate the matter. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the learned lower appellate Court to the petitioners are set aside and they are directed to be released on probation for a period of six months from today on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur. They shall keep peace and be of good behaviour during the said period of probation. This revision is disposed of accordingly.