Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment dated 5-4-1999 passed by the Add l. Sessions judge, Katni in S. T. No. 120/98 whereby appellant and his co-accused have been convicted under Sections 120-B and 323, IPC and each of them has been sentenced to R. I. for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 500. 00 and R. I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 respectively. ( 2. ) FACTS of the case lie within a narrow compass. Deceased Uma shanker was running a grocery shop in Village Majhagwa. he purchased paddy worth Rs. 700. 00 from appellant Johar and wheat worth Rs. 20,000. 00 from his co-accused. Deceased made the payment in part. Appellant and Rooplal were demanding remaining amount but the deceased was avoiding to make the payment on one pretext or the other. On 9-10-1997 at about 7. 00 P. M. appellant Johar and his co-accused Rooplal armed with sticks went to the grocery shop of the deceased for recovery of the balance amount. They caused hurt to the deceased by means of sticks. When Mangal Prasad, father of deceased tried to intervene, he was also assaulted. Deceased and his parents closed the door of the shop, thereupon appellant and co-accused left the spot. Deceased could not lodge the report on 9-10-1997 due to fear of appellant and said co-accused. ( 3. ) ON the date of incident at about 6. 30 A. M. deceased Uma shanker started his motor-cycle to go the police station to lodge the report. On hearing the sound of the engine of motor- cycle, appellant and other accused persons namely; Rooplal, Roshan, Santosh Kumar, Ram Prasad, rajju, Faagu, Veeru, Ram Sanehi, Bhaggu @ Bhagchand, Hari @ Hariram, sheelchand and Pattu @ Pahalad came to the spot and surrounded the deceased Uma Shanker and started dragging him. Parents of appellant shouted for help. On hearing the cries of parents of deceased Shiv Shanker (P. W. 2), shyam Sunder (P. W. 3) and Manor Kumar (P. W. 5) came to the spot and requested the accused persons not to assault the deceased but the accused persons did not accede to their request and caused injuries to the deceased by means of sticks. On hearing the cries of parents of deceased Shiv Shanker (P. W. 2), shyam Sunder (P. W. 3) and Manor Kumar (P. W. 5) came to the spot and requested the accused persons not to assault the deceased but the accused persons did not accede to their request and caused injuries to the deceased by means of sticks. In order to save himself, deceased ran towards the outskirts of the village and fell down in the field of Jagdish Agrawal. The accused persons followed him and when he fell down in the field, all the accused persons dealt lathis blows on him. Consequently deceased Uma Shanker died in the field of jagdish Agrawal. ( 4. ) WHEN deceased was being surrounded outside his house, his father left for Police Station, Rithi to seek police help. Police reached the spot and found dead body of Uma Shanker lying in the field of Jagdish Agrawal. His motor-cycle was also lying near his dead body. The report of Mangal Prasad was recorded as Dehati Nalishi and on the basis whereof, police has registered the offence punishable under Sections 147,148, 302 and 120-B, IPC against all the accused persons. Inquest was conducted on the dead body of Uma shanker and the body was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Y. K. Malaiya (P. W. 9) who found that the death of Uma shanker occurred due to shock as a cumulative effect of the injuries sustained by him and the death was homicidal. ( 5. ) AFTER usual investigation, a challan was filed against all the accused persons referred to above and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Add l. Sessions Judge framed the charge for the aforesaid offence against the accused persons. Appellants and other co-accused abjured their guilt and pleaded they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated. ( 6. ) AFTER concluding the trial, the learned Trial Judge did not find appellant Roshan and three co-accused namely Johar, Rooplal and Santosh kumar guilty of offence punishable under Sections 147,148 and 302 of Indian penal Code and accordingly acquitted them but found them guilty of offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. ( 7. ) BEING aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, appellant has filed this appeal. ( 8. ( 7. ) BEING aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, appellant has filed this appeal. ( 8. ) I have heard Shri A. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Suresh Kureel, Government Advocate for State. ( 9. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has not challenged his conviction but prayed that sentence awarded to him may be modified and the appellant may be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. He further submitted that the transaction of paddy and wheat was with accused Johar and rooplal and not with the appellant. He also submitted that the appellant is a railway employee and if the sentence of imprisonment is confirmed, he will lose his job. He further contended that appellant is having a permanent abode and there is no previous conviction at his discredit. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted at bar that appellant is working in railways and this fact has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the State. ( 10. ) HAVING regard to the circumstances of this case including the nature of the offence, character, antecedents of the appellant and the fact that appellant is having a permanent abode there is no previous conviction at his discredit, and appellant being a Government servant is likely to lose his job in the event of sentence of imprisonment being maintained. I consider it expedient to give him the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is accordingly directed that appellant Roshan s/o Ram Prasad Patel, shall be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Act. For this purpose, the appellant is directed to execute a personal bond for Rs. 3,000. 00 (Rs. Three thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within a period of three months from the date of this order, for keeping peace and good conduct for a period of three years from the date of furnishing the above bond. 3,000. 00 (Rs. Three thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within a period of three months from the date of this order, for keeping peace and good conduct for a period of three years from the date of furnishing the above bond. The Trial Magistrate, while releasing the appellant on probation shall take an undertaking from the appellant and his surety in writing that the appellant shall keep peace and good conduct and also shall abstain from violent behaviour for the aforesaid period of three years; and in case of breach of any of the conditions of the bond on the part of the appellant or his surety, the appellant shall appear before the Trial Court, as and when so called, to receive the sentence if not undergone as has been awarded to him by the Court below by the impugned judgment, and in that case, the amount of his respective bond shall also be liable to be recovered from him. ( 11. ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this appeal is hereby partly allowed. The sentence awarded to the appellant by the Court below vide impugned judgment dated 5-4-1999 shall stand modified to the extent indicated above. After the appellant furnishes personal bond and surety bond, as directed above, the amount of fine, if has already been deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Criminal Appeal partly allowed.