Judgment Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This State appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the Judgment and order dated 28.1989 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Cr. Case No. 31/83 by which he acquitted the accused respondents of all the charges framed against them i.e. for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 323/149, 324, 324/149 and 452 IPC. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows: On 16.1981, P.W.8 Dilwar lodged an oral report with the Police Station Shiv District Barmer stating that his house was near the house of accused respondent Sodha and he went to the house of accused respondent Sodha where other accused persons were also sitting and they told P.W.8 Dilwar that they had come there with an intention to do CID and upon this, P.W.8 Dilwar came to his house. It is further stated in the report that when P.W.8 Dilwar was sitting in the chowk along with his wife PW4 Mst.Mariyam, all accused respondents having lathies and kuiharies in their hands came there and abused P.W.8 Dilwar. Thereafter, the accused respondent Sodha gave kuihari blow on the head of P.W.8 Dilwar, as a result of which he fell down and thereafter, accused respondent Davad inflicted kuihari blow on the left eye of P.W.8 Dilwar and rest accused persons also beat him. On this report, police registered the case and chalked out FIR Ex.P/3 and started investigation. During investigation, P.W.8 Dilwar was got medically examined and his medical examination report is Ex. P/6, which shows that he received seven injuries and out of these seven injuries, injury no. 1 was incised wound caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries were simple in nature. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 447 and 307 IPC in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was transferred to the Court of Session. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra sent the case back to the learned Chief Ju-dicial Magistrate, Barmer after discharging the accused respondents for the offence under Section 307 IPC vide order dated 17.1. 1983. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra sent the case back to the learned Chief Ju-dicial Magistrate, Barmer after discharging the accused respondents for the offence under Section 307 IPC vide order dated 17.1. 1983. On 12.1983, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the accused respondents Sodha and Davad for the offence under Sections 148, 324, 323/149 and 453 and against rest accused respondents for the offence under Sections 147, 323 and 324 read with 149 and 452 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence, two witnesses were produced by the accused respondents. After conclusion of trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer vide his Judgment and order dated 28.1989 acquitted the accused respondents of all the charges framed against them holding inter-alia that there are material contradictions between the statements of the prosecution witnesses and they do not tally with the medical evidence. Aggrieved from the said Judgment and order dated 28.1989 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. 3. In this appeal, it has been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is wrong to say that statement of P.W.8 Dilwar is not corroborated by medical evidence, but on the contraiy his statement gets corrobora-tion not only from medical evidence but also from evidence of eye witnesses. Hence, the impugned Judgment of the learned CJM suffers from basic infirmities and the same is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondents supported the impugned Judgment and order dated 28.1989 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer. 5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused respondents and perused the record of the case. 6. Before proceeding further, first the injuries of P.W.8 Dilwar have to be seen. 7. PW7 Dr. G.K. Vyas has been produced on behalf of the prosecution, who has stated in his examination that on 16.1981 he examined P .W. 8 Dilwar and found as many as seven injuries on his person and out of these seven injuries, injury no. 6. Before proceeding further, first the injuries of P.W.8 Dilwar have to be seen. 7. PW7 Dr. G.K. Vyas has been produced on behalf of the prosecution, who has stated in his examination that on 16.1981 he examined P .W. 8 Dilwar and found as many as seven injuries on his person and out of these seven injuries, injury no. 1 was incised wound on his left parietal bone, which was caused by sharp edged weapon; injuries no. 2 and 3 were lacerated wound on left eyebrow and just below the left eye respectively and injury no. 4 was on his nose. PW7 Dr. G.K. Vyas has proved the injury report Ex.P/ 6. He was further stated that he found no fracture on the person of P.W.8 Dilwar. 8. Thus, from the statement of Dr. G.K.Vyas, PW7, it is clear that P.W.8 Dilwar received seven injuries, out of which, injury no. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon. 9. P.W.8 Dilwar in his statement recorded in Court has stated that at the time of incident, accused appellant Shoda was having kuihari and accused Appellant Davad was also having kuihari and rest accused persons were armed with lathies and first he was given kuihari blow on his head by accused Appellant Sodha and thereafter, he was given another kuihari blow on his left eye by accused Appellant Davad. He has further stated that he was also beaten by accused Appellant Rahim with lathi and caused injury on his nose. 10. Thus, P.W.8 Dilwar has specifically mentioned the names of only three accused respondents, namely, Shoda, Davad and Rahim and for rest accused person, he has not specified which type of injury was caused by them. 11. The statement of P.W.8 Dilwar is fully supported by the medical evidence, which is found in the statement of PW7 Dr. G.K.Vyas and injury report Ex P/6 except that though there is a mention of the fact that accused respondent Davad gave a kuihari blow, but the injuries which have been found near the eye are assigned to be lacerated wound not caused by sharp edged weapon. Since there is a statement of injured himself , therefore, this part of his statement that he received injuries near the eye at the hands of the accused respondent Davad has to be accepted. 12. Since there is a statement of injured himself , therefore, this part of his statement that he received injuries near the eye at the hands of the accused respondent Davad has to be accepted. 12. The statement of P.W.2 Latif , whose name is also found in the report Ex.P/3 is also relevant to the extent that he has also mentioned the names of the accused respondents showing their presence on the spot. 10.13. PW4 Mst. Mariyam is the wife of injured Dilwar, P.W.8. She has also stated that her husband P.W.8 Dilwar was beaten first by accused respondent Sodha by kuihari on his head and thereafter, by accused respondent Davad by kuihari on his eye. 114. Thus, the above two witnesses, namely, P.W.2 Latif and PW4 Mst. Mariyam corroborate the statement of P.W.8 Dilwar. 15. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that so far as the sharing of common intention among all accused respondents is concerned, it cannot be said that all accused respondents shared the common object in beating P.W.8 Dilwar and mere presence would not be sufficient to convict other accused, namely, Kayam, Gafoor, Abbas, Khera and Sultan other than Sodha, Davad and Rahim with the aid of Section 149, IPC. 16. Therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly acquitted the accused respondents Kayam, Gafoor, Abbas, Khera and Sultan of the charges framed against them and his findings acquitting these accused respondents are liable to be confirmed and State appeal so far as these accused Appellants are concerned, is liable to be dismissed. 17. Since the incident took place on the spur of moment, therefore, each accused namely Sodha, Davad and Rahim would be liable for the injury which has been caused by himself 18. Asalready stated above, P.W.8 Dilwar received as many as seven injuries. For injury no. 1, which was caused by sharp edged weapon, accused respondent Sodha is held responsible; for injuries no.2 and 3, which were caused by blunt object, accused respondent Davad is held responsible and for injury no.4, which was caused by blunt object, accused respondent Rahim is held responsible. 19. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused respondent Sodha for the offence under Section 324, IPC and against accused respondents Davad and Rahim for the offence under Section 323, IPC. 20. 19. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused respondent Sodha for the offence under Section 324, IPC and against accused respondents Davad and Rahim for the offence under Section 323, IPC. 20. For the reasons stated above, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed error in acquitting the accused respondents Sodha, Davad and Rahim. The findings of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitting the accused respondents Sodha, Davad and Rahirn are not based on correct appreciation of evidence and thus, they are liable to be set aside. 21. Thenext question is what sentence should be awarded to the accused respondents Sodha for the offence under Section 324, IPC and Davad and Rahim for the offence under Section 323, IPC. .22. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the facts that incident took place on 16.1981 and accused respondents Sodha, Davad and Rahirn were acquitted by the trial court on 28.1989 and they have faced trial for so many years and now 19 years have passed and this period is enough to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically, it would be in the interest of justice that they should be released on probation while convicting accused respondent Sodha for the offence under Section 324, IPC and accused respondents Davad and Rahim for the offence under Section 323, IPC. The result of the above discussion is that: 1. The appeal of the State of Rajasthan against the accused respondents Kayam, Gafoor, Abbas, Khera and Sultan is dismissed, after confirming the Judgment and order dated 28.1989 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, 2. Theappeal of the State of Rajasthan against the accused respondents Sodha, Davad and Rahim is partly allowed in the manner that accused respondent Sodha is convicted for the offence under Section 324, IPC and accused respondents Davad and Rahim are convicted for the offence under Section 323, IPC and the Judgment and order dated 28.1989 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrner acquitting the accused respondents Sodha, Davad and Rahim are set aside. 3. 3. However, instead of sentencing accused respondent Sodha for the offence under Section 324, IPC and accused respondents Davad and Rahim for the offence under Section 323, IPC, I would direct that they shall be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 provided each of them executes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/-(Rs. One Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer within a period of two months from today to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. I further direct that each accused respondent shall pay Rs. 1,000/-(Rs. One Thousand Only) as compensation to injured Dilwar, P.W.8 and for depositing the said amount in the Court, each accused respondent is granted three months time and on depositing the said amount in the’ Court, the same shall be giveen to injured Dilwar,