JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.4.1988 passed by Sessions Judge, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 34/1987, whereby the accused appellant Jagdish has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years Rl with fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergone one months Rl; and the accused appellant Ramdeva has been convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and instead of sentencing him for the aforesaid offence, he has been released on probation along-with the compensation of Rs. 200/-; to be paid to PW 2 Nanga. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- "On 30.12.1986, PW-1 Phool Chand lodged an FIR in Police Station, Kotwali, District Tonk and it was alleged by him that on that day about 10-15 cows were destroying their crops. They took away those cows to get them put in Kanji House. When they were going in the way, Jagdish Gurjar and Ram Deva Gurjar met and stopped them and told that they should release their cows. Jagdish was armed with Gandasi and Ram Deva was armed with Kulhadi. Jagdish gave Gandasi blow on his person. He gave three blows. Ram Deva gave blow on the person of Nanga. On the basis of the aforesaid report, case under Sections 307, 324, 341, 323/34 IPC was registered. After completion of investigation, the Police submitted a challan against the accused appellants under Sections 307, 324, 323, 341/34 IPC. The case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Tonk for trial. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused persons, who denied for the same and Claimed for trial. The prosecution has submitted witnesses and some documents were exhibited. After hearing both the sides, learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellants vide his judgment dated 22.4.1988, as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment dated 22.4.1988, the appeal was preferred by the accused appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that he is only requesting to this Court that looking to the nature of the injuries as well as the statement of PW-13 Dr. Mahesh Prasad Goyal, the matter jumps under Section 308 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC because all the injuries are simple in nature. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that he is only requesting to this Court that looking to the nature of the injuries as well as the statement of PW-13 Dr. Mahesh Prasad Goyal, the matter jumps under Section 308 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC because all the injuries are simple in nature. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Munna v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1984 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) page 529 . Relevant paras are reproduced as under: "5. The question that next arises is with regard to the offence that can be said to have been committed by the accused appellant. The submission of Shri Bhartiya was that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the only offence which can be said to have been committed was falling under Section 308 IPC and that the Additional Sessions Judge has erred in convicting the accused appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC. In this connection Shri Bhartiya has invited my attention to the statement of Dr. Y.K. Sharma PW 6 and has pointed out that Dr. YK. Sharma stated that the injury sustained by Jafar Mohd. was sufficient to cause death, but it has not been stated by Dr. Sharma that the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. I have perused the statement of Dr. YK. Sharma and I find that during the course of examination-in-chief he has stated that the injury found after operation could result in death. Dr. Sharma has not stated that injury that was found on the person of Jafar Mohd. was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the circumstances it cannot be said that if Jafar Mohd. had died the appellant would have been guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. In the facts and circumstances of the case the offence that would have been made out against the appellant in case Jafar Mohd. had died, would have been culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 IPC inasmuch as the appellant could only be attributed with the intention to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. In the facts and circumstances of the case the offence that would have been made out against the appellant in case Jafar Mohd. had died, would have been culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 IPC inasmuch as the appellant could only be attributed with the intention to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC cannot, therefore, be sustained and he can only be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC." 5. It was held in the aforesaid para that Doctor not stating that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC cannot, therefore, be sustained and he can only be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jodh Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 1984 . 7. Learned counsel has further contended that accused appellant Ram Deva has already been given the benefit of probation under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. The accused appellant Jagdish has remained in confinement for about 15 days. He should also be released on probation, if not, then he should be released for the period already undergone by him, as indicated above, after convicting him under Section 308 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC Act on the ground that it is the first offence of his life; occurred took place in the year 1986, which is 28 years ago from today; and he belongs to a respectable family. 8. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the statement of PW 13 Dr. Mahesh Prasad Goyal and other statements of prosecution witnesses. 10. Looking to the fact that all the injuries are simple in nature and they are not dangerous to life and the intention of the accused appellants was to get released their cows from the custody of the complainant and the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, the matter jumps under Section 308 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC. 10. Looking to the fact that all the injuries are simple in nature and they are not dangerous to life and the intention of the accused appellants was to get released their cows from the custody of the complainant and the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, the matter jumps under Section 308 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC. However, I do not think it proper to release the accused appellant Jagdish on probation, but in my view, ends of justice would be met if he is released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that at the time of occurrence, accused appellant Ramdeva was young and benefit of Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act should also be given to him. 12. The prayer of the counsel for the appellants is genuine, hence the same is allowed. 13. For these reasons, the appeal is disposed of with the following directions : (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The conviction of accused appellant Jagdish is altered from Section 307 IPC to 308 IPC. (iii) The conviction of accused appellant no. 2 Ramdeva is maintained for the offence under Section 323 IPC, as ordered by the trial court. (iv) The sentence of accused appellant Jagdish is reduced for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. (v) Accused appellant no. 2 Ramdeva has already been given the benefit of probation. In addition to that, he is also given the benefit under Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act. (vi) The accused appellant no. 1 Jagdish is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand canceled. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated above. Appeal Partly Allowed. *******