JUDGMENT 1. - By order dated 10.5.2004, the appeal was posted for final hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is finally heard and decided at the admission stage. 2. This criminal appeal u/s. 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short `the Act' hereinafter referred to) as directed against the judgment and order dated 3.12.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jalore, Camp Bhinmal (for short `the trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 82/2003 (2/2003) whereby the trial Court convicted the appellants for offences u/ss. 447, 323/34 & 325/34 IPC but instead of awarding substantive imprisonment, the appellants were released on probation u/s. 4(1) of the Act. However, the trial Court imposed a fine of Rs. 4,000/- upon each of the accused-appellants as prosecution expenses and -on such deposit being made, ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the injured complainant as compensation. Aggrieved by the judgment and order impugned the appellants have filed the instant appeal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the judgment and order impugned under the appeal. I have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court. 4. PW 8 Somatiram lodged a First Information Report Exhibit-P/10 with Police Station, Modra on 10.10.2002. The police after usual investigation filed challan against the appellants for the offences u/ss. 447,323, 323/34, 324, 324/34, 325, 325/34, 326, 326/34, 307 & 307/34 IPC. The prosecution adduced the evidence by producing as many as 16 witnesses and produced documentary evidence Exhibits-P/1 to P/23. The appellants made statements u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and denied the allegations and came with the case that appellant No. 1-Chamna Ram and appellant No. 3-Dungara Ram suffered injuries at the hands of the complainant party, for which a cross FIR, bearing No. 172/2002, was lodged against the complainant party. However, they did not produce any evidence in defence. On appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 324,324/34,326/34,307 & 307/34 IPC and accordingly they were acquitted of these offences. Co-accused- Shakaram was not found guilty for the offences u/ss. 447, 323, 323/34, 324/34, 325, 325/34, 326, 326/34, 307 & 307/34 IPC. However, the appellants were found guilty of the offences u/ss. 324,324/34,326/34,307 & 307/34 IPC and accordingly they were acquitted of these offences. Co-accused- Shakaram was not found guilty for the offences u/ss. 447, 323, 323/34, 324/34, 325, 325/34, 326, 326/34, 307 & 307/34 IPC. However, the appellants were found guilty of the offences u/ss. 447, 323/34 & 325/34 and accordingly they were convicted for these offences. However, taking into account the young age of the appellants and the fact that it- was their first offence, the trial Court, instead of awarding substantive sentence, granted benefit of probation u/s. 4 of the Act and directed that they be released on probation provided each of them furnishes a personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- to keep peace and be of good behaviour and to appear before the trial Court and to undergo the sentence as and when they called upon to do so during the period of two years. The trial Court also directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 4,000/- each as prosecution expenses. 5. PW 8 Somatiram is the injured eye-witness. He stated that at about 11.00 a.m. while he was reaping Gawar crop in his agricultural field, the appellants came with sheep and suddenly brought their sheep in his agricultural field and started damaging the standing crop to which he objected, upon which the appellants inflicted injuries on his skull, legs and other parts of the body. The appellants had lathi covered with iron rings. He specifically stated that he suffered two injuries on the skull which were caused by appellant No. 1-Chamna and appellant No. 2-Lada Ram. He further stated that about 10 to 12 injuries were caused by the appellant. He was rescued by PW 4 Kesharam, PW 10 Fancy Devi, PW 11 Smt. Huli and PW 3 Bagatu. He remained under treatment for 15 days in hospital. He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be elicited. However, he denied that appellant No. 1-Chamna and appellant No. 3-Dungara Ram suffered any injury in the occurrence. PW 1 Dr. Ramesh Chouhan, medical official, incharge General Hospital, Jalore, has proved the injuries of injured Somatiram vide Exhibit-P/1. He stated that Somatiram suffered incised wound on left parieto occipital region and on right fronto-temporal region and also noticed as many as 9 other injuries on the various parts of the body. On being advised for X-ray, the appellant was examined by Radiologist vide Exhibit-P/2. He stated that Somatiram suffered incised wound on left parieto occipital region and on right fronto-temporal region and also noticed as many as 9 other injuries on the various parts of the body. On being advised for X-ray, the appellant was examined by Radiologist vide Exhibit-P/2. X-ray report shows depressed fracture of frontal bone as also fracture of right tibia bone and according to Radiologist the injuries No. 1, 7 & 9 were simple in nature and injuries Nos. 2 & 8 were grievous in nature. It was also found that injury No. 2 was more dangerous to life, if the treatment would not have been given immediately. PW 1 Dr. Ramesh Chouhan has proved Exhibits-P/1, P/2, P/3 and P/4 and stated that injury No. 2 was grievous in nature as it was on the skull and, therefore, if the injury would not have been treated immediately, it could be dangerous to the life. He has proved report Exhibit-P/5. He has proved injury sustained by eye-witnesses Fancy Devi and Bagthu. 6. PW 2 Sardar Singh, who is immediate neighbour of Somatiram- complainant's field, was grazing the cattle and on seeing him, the appellants and one Sakiya ran away. They were armed with the lathis. He stated that when PW 8 Somatiram was reaping his `Gawar' crop, at that time appellants came to his field armed with lathi and caused injuries on the head and other parts of body of the complainant. He stated that Somatiram and his wife Yso spffered ,iniurie is PW 4 Kaisharam also stated that the sheep belonging to the appellants entered into the field of PW 8 Somatiram and caused damage to the standing crop. He further stated that the appellants and one Sakiya armed with lathi assautled him. He reached the spot and rescued him. At the same time PW 2 Sardar Singh also came there. He stated that appellant-Chamna inflicted injury on the head and Ladhiya inflicted injury on right leg and others also inflicted injuries by lathi on which PW 8 Somatiram fell down. His wife came to rescue hip- and she fell on PW 8 Somatiram to save him. She was also assautled at the hands of the appellants. These witnesses also put to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be elicited, on the contrary they remained consistent to the testimony. His wife came to rescue hip- and she fell on PW 8 Somatiram to save him. She was also assautled at the hands of the appellants. These witnesses also put to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be elicited, on the contrary they remained consistent to the testimony. PW 10 Fancy Devi is also an eye-witness, and stated that she was also present and assisting her uncle Somatiram and aunt Huli when they were reaping Gawar crop in their field at about 11.00 a.m. At that time, the appellants bought their sheep in their field and the sheep started damaging Gawar crop and his uncle Somatiram was trying to keep out them, then the appellants and one Sakiya assautled his uncle Somatiram. They were armed with lathis and inflicted injuries on skull, leg and other parts of his body. She came to rescue her uncle and also suffered injuries at the hand of the appellants. She stated that PW 2 Sardar Singh and PW 4 Kaisharam, who were working in a nearby field, also came to recue her uncle. He was bleeding and thereafter he was taken to Modara and then Jalore Hospital. Similarly PW 11 Smt. Huli is also an injured eye-witness and made a similar statement like that of PW 8 and PW 10. She has also suffered injuries at the hands of the appellants. She has specifically named all the appellants and one Sakiya as assailants. It was specifically stated that appellants-Chamna inflicted lathi injury on her husband Somatiram and appellant-Ladhiya inflicted injury on right leg and thereafter all the accused caused number of injuries to her husband Somatiram. PW 12 is also an eye-witness and also made a similar statement that of PW 8, PW 10 and PW 11. Other witnesses are police official who have proved the recoveries and other articles i.e. Lathis etc. 7. From a close scrutiny of the statements of these witnesses, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused-appellants for the offences for which they have been convicted. Injuries suffered by PW 8 Somatiram and other eye-witnesses Fancy Devi and Huli were proved by Dr. Ramesh Chouhan. Two of the injuries caused to PW 8 Somatiram are grievous in nature. Other injuries are also on almost all parts of the body. Injuries suffered by PW 8 Somatiram and other eye-witnesses Fancy Devi and Huli were proved by Dr. Ramesh Chouhan. Two of the injuries caused to PW 8 Somatiram are grievous in nature. Other injuries are also on almost all parts of the body. Though the appellants stated that appellant No. 1-Chamna and appellant No. 3-Dungara suffered injuries at the hands of the complainant party, but no injury report has been produced on the record as also cross FIR has neither been placed on record nor proved in accordance with law. 8. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt for the offences noticed above and they have been rightly convicted. The trial Court by taking a lenient view extended the benefit of probation u/s. 4(1) of the Act. However, looking to the evidence regarding the fact that there is cross case and in that cross FIR the appellants have stated that they suffered injuries and they have already faced the trial and therefore, the order of the trial Court regarding payment of Rs. 4,000/- each as prosecution expenses appears to be on the higher side. 9. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants against the conviction and grant of probation fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the order of the trial Court directing each appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as prosecution expenses to the extent that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- each as prosecution expenses.Appeal dismissed. *******