JUDGMENT 1. - The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 374 Criminal Procedure Code to challenge the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalore in Criminal Case No. 11/1993 dated 8.4.1994 by which the learned trial Court convicted the appellant Satya Prakash for the offence under Sections 323 and 325 and passed sentence against him for one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 325 and three months under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and while granting benefit under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act released the appellant Bhanwar Lal for offence under Sections 323 and 325/34 Indian Penal Code 2. As per facts of the case, an F.I.R. was registered upon the statement of one Bhanwar Singh against the appellants for the offence under Sections 323, 325 and 307 Indian Penal Code on 1.1.1993. In the statement of Complainant-Bhanwar Singh, it is alleged that on 31.12.1992 at about 8.30 P.M., he was going with Bhim Singh and Poosa Ram from Village Alena to their well. At that time, both the appellants assaulted the complainant as well as Bhim Singh and Poosa Ram. In the incident, the complainant received an injury upon his head and Bhim Singh was also assaulted by lathi. After registration of F.I.R. the Investigating Officer of Police Station, Jalore commenced the investigation and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the appellants for offence under Sections 323, 325 and 307 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalore, The Sessions Judge, Jalore recorded the statement, of eight prosecution witnesses and exhibited 15 documents in the trial and after recording evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code in which both the appellants refused to.accept the allegations levelled against them and produced two witness DW-1 Pukhraj and DW-2 Mohan Lal in their defence. 3. 3. After completion of the trial, vide judgment dated 8.4.1994, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code but held guilty for offence under Sections 325, 325/34, 323 Indian Penal Code Appellant Satya Prakash was punished for the offence under Section 325 Indian Penal Code and Bhanwar Lal was held guilty for the offence under Section 325/34 Indian Penal Code The accused Bhanwar Lal was granted benefit of Section 6 of Probation of Offenders Act and released on probation whereas refused to granted the benefit of Probation Act to the appellant Satya Prakash and convicted him for offence under Sections 325 and 323 Indian Penal Code with sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 7200/-for offence under Section 325 and three months simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50/- for the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based upon perverse finding because prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt. Counsel further submits that the appellant Bhanwar Lal has been granted of Probation Act whereas the same benefit has been refused to appellant know well that allegations levelled against both the appellant are the same, therein Judgment impugned may be quashed. 5. At the threshold, it is also submitted that prosecution prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and without console in evidence adduced by the prosecution in right wrongly held the appellants guilty for the offence under Section Indian Penal Code Thus, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 6. In the alternative, it is prayed that the benefit the co-accused Bhanwar Lal may also be granted and judicial Magistrate, Sojat but it has been denied solely on the ground of against Food Adulteration Act, by the trial Court is not correct because there is no allegation of prosecution that any previous conduct of appellant is bad and any other case is registered against the appellant Satya Prakash. Therefore, if this Court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, then benefit of probation may also be granted to the appellant Satya Prakash at par with the appellant Bhanwar Lal. 7. Therefore, if this Court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, then benefit of probation may also be granted to the appellant Satya Prakash at par with the appellant Bhanwar Lal. 7. As per the appellants, occurrence took place in the month of December, 1992 and near about two decades have passed, therefore, at this state, it is not proper to send the appellant Satya Prakash behind the bars. Thus, he may also be granted benefit of probation. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submits that the appellants are not entitled for any relief in this appeal because finding given by the trial Court after appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution, is not perverse, illegal for the offence under Sections 323, 325 Indian Penal Code Therefore, the judgment rendered by the trial Court is just and in accordance with law. Thus, this appeal may kindly be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned. 10. The findings given by the trial Court in the judgment is based upon statement of injured PW-5 Bhim Singh and PW-6 Poosa Ram, So also upon their respective injury reports which is proved by the prosecution for the offence under Sections 323 and 325 Indian Penal Code The learned trial Court reached to the conclusion that there was no previous enmity between the parties, therefore, offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is not made out. In my opinion, the finding given by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 323 and 325 Indian Penal Code does not require any interference. More so, the finding given by the trial Court for both the offence against both the appellants is based upon sound appreciation of mind and material evidence available on record. Therefore, finding given by the trial Court for the offence aforesaid dies not require any interference. 11. With regard to the sentence awarded to the appellant No. 1 Satya Prakash, it is very necessary to observe that on one hand, the trial Court granted benefit of probation to one of the accused Bhanwar Lal against whom, almost similar charges were levelled by the prosecution but this fact was required to be considered for the purpose of granting same benefit to the appellant No. 1 also. Admittedly, the incident took place in the year 1992 and in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 1821 , Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. , it has been held that sentence can be reduced in a case where incident occurred almost 20 years back. Here in this case, the facts are on better footing because co-accused has been granted benefit of probation but without any cogent reason, the said benefit has been denied to the appellant No. 1 Satya Prakash. Therefore, in may opinion, when finding by the trial Court for both the accused appellants are same, then the benefit So probation cannot be denied to the appellant No. 1- Satya Prakash also. 12. In view of the above, while maintaining finding for conviction, the instant appeal is partly allowed and the order passed by the trial Court for granting benefit of probation to the appellant No. 2 Bhanwar Lal is hereby upheld but the sentence awarded to the appellant No. 1 Satya Prakash for the offence under Sections 323 and 325 Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and in place of sentence awarded to the appellant Satya Prakash, the fine is enhanced form Rs. 200/- to Rs. 5000/- and the appellant is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The trial Court is directed to disburse the said amount to the complainant. The accused-appellants are on bail, therefore, bail bonds are hereby discharged.Appeal partly allowed. *******