JUDGMENT Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) A first information report (Ext. Ka-7) was lodged at the instance of PW 1 Kunwar Singh against Hoshram, Jaipal, Samay Singh and Sadhuram on 03.05.1993 in PS Laksar, which was registered as case crime no. 104 of 1993, under Sections 452, 324 & 323 IPC. The chik FIR (Ext. Ka-7) was registered on the basis of complaint (Ext. Ka-1), written by PW 1 Kunwar Singh. According to the informant, the incident took place on 03.05.1993, at 9:00 a.m. Hoshram, Jaipal, Samay Singh and Sadhuram came to the drawing room of informant and condemned/ridiculed that he (informant) was a big litigant. Hoshram and Jaipal inflicted blow of balkati (sharp edged weapon) on the head of Rajkumar. Sadhuram inflicted a blow of knife and Samay Singh assaulted Rajkumar with sticks. When the alarm was raised, co-villagers Vedpal & Budh Singh reached on the place of occurrence. The eyewitnesses saved Rajkumar, who was admitted to Government Hospital. 2. After the investigation, a charge sheet against the accused persons was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 324, 323 and 308 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charges in respect of offences punishable under Sections 452 and 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. PW 1 Kunwar Singh, PW 2 Rajkumar, PW 3 Budh Singh, PW 4 Ravindra, PW 5 SI Sardar Singh, PW 6 SI Mukundi Lal Sharma and PW 7 K.P.Sarabhai were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which, the accused Jaipal said that he lodged a first information report against the informant and his brother. Present first information report was a counterblast to the first information report filed by him. Accused Hoshram, Samay Singh, Jaipal and Sadhuram said that they were falsely implicated in this case. After considering the evidence on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee found Samay Singh guilty of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 452 IPC. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/- in relation to the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC. After considering the evidence on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee found Samay Singh guilty of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 452 IPC. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/- in relation to the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC. Accused Jaipal, Hoshram and Sadhuram were convicted under Sections 324 and 452 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months each. All the accused persons were exonerated of the charges under Section 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 12.10.2001 of conviction and sentence, present Government Appeal was preferred. 4. PW 1 Kunwar Singh, in his examination-in-chief, supported the prosecution story. He also proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-1). He said that on 03.05.1993, when he was present at his home and his brother along with Rajkumar was sitting in his drawing room, the accused persons came at around 9:00 clock and (they) inflicted injuries of the weapons, which they were carrying. Rajkumar sustained injuries in the process. Eyewitnesses Budh Singh and Vedpal reached on the place of occurrence and intervened. Rajkumar was taken to the Laksar Hospital. 5. In the cross-examination, PW1 said that Rajkumar was his real younger brother. When he raised alarm, PW 1 reached on the spot. Hoshram, Samay Singh and Jaipal Singh were real brothers. He admitted that Rajkumar faced trial in which Jaipal was assaulted. The wearing apparels of the injured were stained, but the same were not taken by the Police in their possession. Rajkumar was taken to the hospital after about four hours of the incident. The first information report was lodged after the medical examination of Rajkumar. He also said in the cross-examination that the accused persons inflicted blows of balkati and knife on Rajkumar. Samay Singh gave a blow of stick. 6. PW 4 Rajkumar was an injured, who also supported the prosecution story and also said that the accused persons gave him the blows of balkati, knife and sticks. He sustained injuries. The allegation levelled by the accused persons against the informant was that he was a big litigant. PW 2 also said that the first information report was lodged by his brother PW 1. X-ray of his injuries was also conducted. He sustained injuries. The allegation levelled by the accused persons against the informant was that he was a big litigant. PW 2 also said that the first information report was lodged by his brother PW 1. X-ray of his injuries was also conducted. In the cross-examination, he said that when the accused persons were hurling abuses at him, the witnesses arrived on the scene. He was assaulted in the presence of witnesses. He reiterated the weapons which were being carried by the accused persons in the commission of the crime. Previous enmity was admitted by PW 2 (and that is why he was castigated for being a big litigant). 7. PW 3 Budh Singh did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. PW 5 SI Sardar Singh was the investigating officer of the case, who submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 452 IP, and the incident, after being further investigated into by PW 6 Mukundi Lal Sharma, SI, at the instance of the police authorities, there was an addition of Section 308 IPC in the array of offences in the charge sheet. When PW 4 Doctor Ravindra Thapaliyal examined injured examined Rajkumar, he found incised wound of 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. bone deep on right parietal region and 6 c.m. from right year. The Medical Officer also found incised wound of 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. skull deep on the left parietal region, 5 c.m. from left ear; and also found incised wound of 4 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. muscle deep vertical on the left deltoid muscle. The duration of injuries was fresh. Injury nos. 1 & 2 were caused by sharp edged object. Injury nos. 1 & 2 were kept under observation. Injury no. 3 was normal. PW 4 proved injury report and the supplementary report and also said that injury nos. 1 & 2 were simple in nature. 8. PW 7 Dr. K.P.Sarabhai examined the injuries of injured Rajkumar on 22.06.1993, at 12:45 p.m. under the directions of CMS, Haridwar. When PW 7 examined the injuries of Rajkumar, he found old healed scar on right parietal region 5 c.m. above right ear; old healed scar left parietal region above the left ear size 2 c.m. long. 8. PW 7 Dr. K.P.Sarabhai examined the injuries of injured Rajkumar on 22.06.1993, at 12:45 p.m. under the directions of CMS, Haridwar. When PW 7 examined the injuries of Rajkumar, he found old healed scar on right parietal region 5 c.m. above right ear; old healed scar left parietal region above the left ear size 2 c.m. long. The first injury was of the size 2.2 c.m. long; old healed scar size 4.5 c.m. long in deltoid muscle. PW 7 Doctor K. P. Sarabhai said that no opinion could be given regarding nature and duration of injuries, but all the injuries were having scars. PW 7 proved Ext. Ka-8. 9. There was no reason to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses who witnessed the crime. They were cross-examined at length but nothing has come in the cross-examination of the said witnesses, which might indicate that they were not speaking the truth. The evidence of the informant and injured is duly corroborated, not only by PW 4, but also by PW 7. The injuries examined by PW 4 were affirmed by PW 7, after the interval of one month and 19 days. Both PW 4 and PW 7 were the Medical Officers. 10. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee has discussed the evidence of each and every prosecution witness and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution story was proved against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Since Samay Singh was aged 16 years plus, therefore, he was let off by sentencing with fine only, and other accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The judgment rendered by Additional Sessions Judge is not intereferable, so far as the conviction of the accused persons in respect of the offences complained of against them is concerned. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants made a submission that the appellants be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 12. Considering the nature of allegations along with the offences charged and established against the accused persons-appellants, this Court is of the view that the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be granted to the accused-appellants in the interest of justice and society. 13. 12. Considering the nature of allegations along with the offences charged and established against the accused persons-appellants, this Court is of the view that the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be granted to the accused-appellants in the interest of justice and society. 13. Thus, instead of sentencing the accused-appellants at once and sending them to prison, it is directed that they shall be released on probation on their each entering into a bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Haridwar, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior. The offenders shall remain under the supervision of District Probation Officer, Haridwar, during such period (of one year). If the offenders are found to be violating any of the conditions made in the supervision order, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Accused-appellants are directed to appear before the CJM, Haridwar on or before 18th July, 2013. 14. With the directions as above, the Criminal Appeal is finally disposed of. Let the Lower Court Record be transmitted back for ensuring compliance.