JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused appellants Ramesh, Mst. Prem, Mst. Kamla, Mst. Kinna, Mst. Sarvo, Dhandoli, Ram Singh and Manori against the judgment dated 21.7.1986 of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur in Sessions Case No. 105 of 1983, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under: 1. Ramesh, 2. Mst. Prem, 3. Mst. Kamla, 4. Mst. Kinna, 5. Mst. Sarvo under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. Three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further three months R.I., under Section 325/149 I.P.C. 2½ years R.I. and fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 2= months R.I. Under Section 324/149 I.P.C. for 1½ years, under Section 323/149 I.P.C. to suffer three months R.I. and under Section 147 I.P.C. to suffer six months R.I. Accused Dhandholi under Section 148 I.P.C., to suffer one year R.I., under Section 307 I.P.C. to suffer four years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default four months R.I., under Section 325/149 I.P.C. three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default 3 months R.I., under Section 324 I.P.C., 1½ years R.I. and under Section 323/149 I.P.C., three months S.I. Manohari under Section 147 I.P.C., to suffer Six months R.I., under Section 325 I.P.C. to suffer three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 300/-and in default three months R.I., under Section 307/149 I.P.C. four years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default 4 months R.I., under Section 324 I.P.C. 1½ years R.I. and under Section 323/149 I.P.C. three months S.I. Ramsingh under Section 147 I.P.C. to suffer six months R.I., under Section 325 I.P.C. to suffer three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default three months R.I. under Section 307/149 I.P.C. four years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default 4 months R.I., under Section 324/149 I.P.C. 1½ years R.I. and under Section 323/149 I.P.C. three months S.I. All the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants states that accused appellant Mst. Sarvo has died and his appeal has abated. The appeal of Mst. Sarvo stands abated and dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants states that accused appellant Mst. Sarvo has died and his appeal has abated. The appeal of Mst. Sarvo stands abated and dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under. On 17.8.1983 following F.I.R. was lodged: " eSa xko >kjsM+k dks jgus okyk gwa] dkSe ls pkcnkj gwa] jkeflag] /kU/kksyh o euksgjh esjs rkm ds yM+ds gS] tks gekjs cVfu;k gSA ge nksuksa ikVhZ ,d gh dqvk ij jgrs gSA jkeflag oxSjk gekj tehu dks gM+iuk pkgrs gS vkSj gjsd rjg ls gels >xM+k djrs jgrs gSA gekjs [ksr dh Mksy o muds [ksr dh Mksy ,d gh gS] tks lkeykrh lh gSA vkt fn esa ml Mksy esa ls ukekywe tkus dksu ?kkl [ksn ys x;k ftl ij gekjs dks mUgksaus fnu esa vkyguk fn;k o gels dgu lqu gks x;hA 'kke dks djhc 7 cts dh ckr gSA eSa o esjk HkkbZ eksrh yky nksuksa gekjs edku ds lkeus cSBs Fks fd brus esa jkeflag o /kU/kksyh viuh M~;wVh nsdj ?kj x;s vkSj vkrs gh ,dne ls gesa xkyh xqQrkj djrs gq, vius ?kjksa esa ls x.Mklh o ykfB;ka fy, gq, vk;s ftuesa jkeflag] /kU/kksyh] euksgjh filjku uFkqvk o jes'k iq= jkeflag o mudh vkSjrsa fdUuk] izse] deyk o mudh cfgu loksZ Fkh vkSj vkrs gh eq>s o esjs HkkbZ dks pkjksa rjQ ls ?ksj fy;k] vkSj lHkh x.Mklh;ksa o ykfB;ksa ls ekjuk 'kq: dj fn;kA lcls igys esjs HkkbZ eksrh yky dks o eq>s ekjk] gesa cpkus ds fy, eq0 f'konsbZ] :ek deyk o Jheu ehuk vk;s] rks mudks Hkh ekjk] esjs HkkbZ ds NksVs cPps iIiw dks Hkh ekSds ij gekjs vykok ueks o vkseh iM+kslh;ku us ;g lkjh ?kVuk ns[kh gSA gekjs HkkbZ eksrhyky dk tckM+k VwV x;k] tks csgks'k gSA gekjk lc dk MkDV~h eqvk;uk dj fy;k gS] tks is'k gSA " The F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 325 and 323 I.P.C. After investigation the police has filed challan before the Judicial Magistrate Hinduan City and thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur and it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Camp Gangapur City. The trial Court framed the charge against the accused appellant and thereafter prosecution examined witnesses and exhibited documents. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The trial Court framed the charge against the accused appellant and thereafter prosecution examined witnesses and exhibited documents. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated above. Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.7.1986, the accused appellants preferred the above appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the accused appellants has contended that the judgment of the Court below has not been passed after due appreciation of evidence. He has further contended that the trial Court has failed to consider the injuries of the accused persons which has been proved by DW-1 Dr. R.S. Parashar and the said injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. He has further contended that the non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused is vital infirmity in the prosecution case and it renders the entire prosecution case doubtful. He has further contended that the explanation of the injuries of the accused in the instant case is very much essential as the prosecution case itself is that there was an oral altercation between the parties, who belong to one family and the cause of the incident was that some body had uprooted the grass from the common boundary of the fields of the parties. And the members of the complainant party being annoyed on account of the exchange of abuses, opened the attack on the accused person and caused injuries to them. He has further contended that the trial Court has erred in invoking Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C. and convicting the accused appellants holding that they formed an unlawful assembly. He has further contended that the trial Court has not appreciated the statement of PW-4 Dr. M.M. Bhardwaj. Dr. Bhardwaj in his statement on oath has stated that injury No. 1 of Moti injured was grievous in nature. He has further stated that the injury No. 1 of Ex.P-15 is not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has stated in his statement "it was confirmed that the injury No. 1 of Ex.P-15 was grievous in nature. He has further stated that the injury No. 1 of Ex.P-15 is not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has stated in his statement "it was confirmed that the injury No. 1 of Ex.P-15 was grievous in nature. The learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that looking to the nature of the injuries the instant matter can be said to be a case falls under Section 308 I.P.C. and not under Section 307 I.P.C. He has pointed out the provisions of Sections 307 and 308 I.P.C., which read as under: 307. Attempt to murder.-Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned. Attempts by life-convicts. [When any person offending under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death]. 308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide.-Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 , and AIR 1989 SC 1097 . 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 , and AIR 1989 SC 1097 . On the basis of the rulings cited above and the provisions of the Sections 307 and 308 I.P.C., the appellants can be convicted under Sections 308 I.P.C. and 308/149 I.P.C. instead of Sections 307 I.P.C. and 307/149 I.P.C. It has further been argued that the accused appellants have served in confinement for some time in judicial custody either they may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them in confinement or they may be released on probation of good conduct. The accused appellants are agriculturist and they are not habitual offenders and the occurrence in the instant case look place in the year 1983 which is more than thirty years ago. Almost ail the appellants are nearby 60 years ago. Almost all the appellants are nearby 60 years old and the accused appellant No. 5 Mst. Sarvo had died during the pendency of the appeal. The accused appellants Mst. Prem, Mst. Kamla and Mst. Kinna are female and they have also crossed nearby 60 years of age and they belong to respectable families and they are not habitual offenders. It has been argued that instead of sending them to jail to serve out period of sentence the accused appellants Mst. Prem, Mst. Kamla and Mst. Kinna may be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. The accused appellant Dhandholi remained in judicial custody for two months and seventeen days, accused appellant Ram Singh remained in judicial custody for 24 days. Accused appellant Manohari remained in judicial custody for twenty days and accused Ramesh remained in judicial custody for seventeen days. To meet the ends of justice, it has further been argued that either the accused appellants Dhandholi, Manohari, Ram Singh and Ramesh should be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 Cr.P.C. or they may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them in confinement instead of sending them to jail to serve out the remaining sentence. 6. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. 6. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. Hari Prasad Jangid, learned counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and have contended that the judgment of the trial Court be maintained and the appeal filed by the appellants should be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 am of the view that to meet the ends of justice the conviction of appellant Ramesh under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. deserves to be altered to Section 308/149 I.P.C. and his conviction under Section 325/149 I.P.C., under Section 324/149 I.P.C. under Section 323/149 I.P.C. and under Section 147 I.P.C. may be maintained, but his period of sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement. Similarly, accused Dhandholi, conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. deserves to be altered to that of Section 308 I.P.C. and his conviction under Section 325/149 I.P.C., under Section 323/149 I.P.C. and under Section 148 I.P.C., deserves to be maintained, but his period of sentence deserves to be reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him in confinement lo meet the ends of justice. Similarly to meet the ends of justice accused Manohari's conviction under Section 307/149 is altered to Section 308/149 I.P.C. and his conviction under Section 147 I.P.C., under Section 325 I.P.C., under Section 324 I.P.C. and under Section 323/149 deserves to be maintained but the period of sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement. Further to meet the ends of justice accused Ramsingh's conviction under Section 307/149 I.P.C. is altered to Section 308/149 I.P.C. and his conviction under Section 147 I.P.C., under Section 325 I.P.C., under Section 324/149 I.P.C. and under Section 323/149 I.P.C. deserves to be maintained but the period of sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement. To further meets of ends of justice the conviction of the accused appellants Mst. Prem and Mst. Kamla and Mst. To further meets of ends of justice the conviction of the accused appellants Mst. Prem and Mst. Kamla and Mst. Kinna under Section 307/149 I.P.C. deserves to be altered to Section 308/149 I.P.C. and their conviction under Section 325/149 I.P.C., 324/149 I.P.C., 323/149 I.P.C. and Section 147 I.P.C., deserves to be maintained but they should be given the benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 Cr.P.C. looking to the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 1983 which is more than 30 years ago, and they are facing trial and appeal period for the last 30 years, they are agriculturist and they are not habitual offenders. 8. Consequently, the appeal of the accused appellants is partly allowed. Conviction of appellant Ramesh under Sections 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. is altered to Section 308/149 I.P.C. and his conviction under Section 325/149 I.P.C., under Section 324/149 I.P.C. under Section 323/149 I.P.C. and under Section 147 I.P.C. is maintained, but his period of sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement. Similarly accused Dhandholi, conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. is altered to that of Section 308 I.P.C. and his conviction under Section 325/149 I.P.C., under Section 323/149 I.P.C.. and under Section 148 I.P.C. is maintained, but his period of sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him in confinement to meet the ends of justice. Similarly accused Manohari's conviction under Section 307/149 is altered to Section 308/149 I.P.C. and his conviction under Section 147 I.P.C., under Section 325 I.P.C., under Section 324 I.P.C. and under Section 323/149 is maintained but the period of sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement. Accused Ramsingh's conviction under Section 307/149 I.P.C. is altered to Section 308/149 I.P.C. and his conviction under Section 147 I.P.C., under Section 325 I.P.C., under Section 324/149 I.P.C. and under Section 323/149 I.P.C. is maintained but the period of sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement. The conviction of the accused appellant Mst. Prem and Mst. Kamla and Mst. Kinna under Section 307/149 I.P.C. is altered to Section 308/149 I.P.C.. The conviction of the accused appellant Mst. Prem and Mst. Kamla and Mst. Kinna under Section 307/149 I.P.C. is altered to Section 308/149 I.P.C.. and their conviction under Section 325/149 I.P.C., 324/149 I.P.C., 323/149 I.P.C. and Section 147 I.P.C. is maintained but they should be given the benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 Cr.P.C. on their furnishing personal bond in the amount of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. The accused appellants Ramesh, Mst. Prem, Mst. Kamla, Mst. Kinna, Dhandholi, Manohari and Ram Singh shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each total Rs. 35,000/- which shall be paid to the each injured in equal proportion. The accused appellants are directed to deposit the fine within a period of three months, if they will not deposit the fine within a period of three months to be disbursed to the injured persons in equal proportion, they will serve the period of another one year sentence. The accused appellants are on bail they need not to surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.The appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******