Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. It is noticed that particulars of the case have wrongly been shown in the cause list as State Vs. Chandra Singh and others whereas it should be shown as State of U.P. Vs. Chandan Singh and others. Office is directed to correct particulars of the case as State of U.P. Vs. Chandan Singh and others. 2. We have heard Sri D.I. Faridi, learned AGA for the State-appellant, Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the accused-respondents and perused the judgment and order acquitting the accused-respondents of offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and simultaneous conviction of the accused Chandan Singh, Ram Kishan, Indar Pal and Nandu dated 22.03.1984 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, State Vs. Chandan Singh and others, under Sections 324 and 323 I.P.C., Police Station Chhaprauli, District Meerut. 3. The accused-respondent Chandan Singh has died. Therefore, appeal against him is abated. 4. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that first information report was lodged against the accused-respondents on 26.06.1982 at the Police Station Chhaprauli, by one Devi Ram son of Karan Singh, R/o Village Sabga, Police Station Chhaprauli, District Meerut alleging that when he was irrigating his field from the tube well at about 8:00 a.m., on that day the accused persons who had 1/7 share in the tube well arrived at the spot and insisted for taking water whereas their turn was to come on Friday only according to understanding between them since long. The informant declined to allow them to take water which led to some verbal altercations. At that accused Chandan Singh and Nandu who were armed with Lathis, Ram Kishan with Bhala, Indar Pal, Gandasa assaulted the informant with an intention to kill him. On a hue and cry raised by the informant, his brother Shiv Kumar, father Karan Singh and uncle Sita Ram who were working in the nearby field arrived at the place of occurrence for his rescue. They, too, were assaulted by the accused persons. In this incident, the informant, his brother, father and uncle were injured. 5. Dr. Seeta Ram PW-5 medically examined the injured persons who had reported all the injuries to be caused on 26.06.1982 at about 8:00 a.m. Injuries sustained by Devi Ram, Karan Singh and Sita Ram on their heads could not be definitely said to be fatal. 6. Dr. In this incident, the informant, his brother, father and uncle were injured. 5. Dr. Seeta Ram PW-5 medically examined the injured persons who had reported all the injuries to be caused on 26.06.1982 at about 8:00 a.m. Injuries sustained by Devi Ram, Karan Singh and Sita Ram on their heads could not be definitely said to be fatal. 6. Dr. N.S. Pal PW-8, radiologist performed x-ray of the skull, left knee and right ankle of the injured Sita Ram. Only tibia bone of the left ankle was found fractured at the lower part. There was no fracture caused either on the skull or left knee. X-ray of ulna bone of the injured Karan Singh was performed in which ulna bone was found to be fractured. As such no grievous injury was caused to the injured which might prove to be fatal. 7. The informant went to the police station where he submitted written report scribed by Asha Ram. After Chik report was prepared and entered at Sl. No.69, FIR was lodged. The case was registered and investigated by S.I. Gopi Chand who at the relevant recorded statements of the witnesses and prepared the site plan. He proved the site plan Ext. Ka-8. He also collected blood stained and simple mud and sealed into two packets which are Exts. 1 and 2. Finding substance in the allegations made against the accused persons, therefore, charge sheet was submitted against the accused-respondents in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, under Sections 307, 325, 324, 323 all read with Section 34 I.P.C. Consequently, the accused persons were committed to the Court of Sessions after it was registered as S.T. No.337/83 State Vs. Chandan Singh and others, who pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution in an endeavour to establish the above charges, examined informant Devi Ram PW-1, Feru PW-2, Lal Singh PW-3, Sita Ram PW-4, Dr. Seeta Ram PW-5, Shambu Dutt Sharma PW-6, Gopi Chand, S.I. PW-7 and Dr. N.S. Pal PW-8. 9. Chandan Singh and others, who pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution in an endeavour to establish the above charges, examined informant Devi Ram PW-1, Feru PW-2, Lal Singh PW-3, Sita Ram PW-4, Dr. Seeta Ram PW-5, Shambu Dutt Sharma PW-6, Gopi Chand, S.I. PW-7 and Dr. N.S. Pal PW-8. 9. The Court of Sessions on consideration of evidence and arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties came to conclusion that offences under Section 325/324/323 I.P.C. being punishable with imprisonment of 7, 3 and 1 year (s) respectively and that all the accused persons belonged to one family who also do not have any past history, applied the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. to them. Accordingly, having regard to their age, character antecedents and the facts and circumstances of the case released them on probation of good conduct by order dated 22.03.1984 thus:- "The accused persons Chandan Singh, Ram Kishan, Indar Pal and Nandu are held not guilty of attempt to murder and are acquitted of the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. as levelled against them. With the aid of Sec. 34 I.P.C. each of them is held guilty of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Shiv Kumar and simple hurts to Devi Ram, Shiv Kumar, Karan Singh and Seeta Ram by lathi, Bhala and Gandasa and are convicted u/s 324 and 323 I.P.C. Instead of sentencing them at once to any punishment each of them is directed to be released on probation of good conduct on his entering bonds of Rs.2000/- with the sureties in the like amount, to appear and to receive sentence when called upon during one year. The bonds and sureties may be furnished within three days failing which the accused persons shall be taken into custody and adequate punishment under these sections shall be awarded to them. During the period allowed for executing bonds and furnishing sureties, the present bonds shall remain in force." 10. Aggrieved the Govt. has come up in this appeal challenging the order dated 22.03.1984. 11. Learned AGA has assailed the impugned judgment and order on the following grounds: 1. That learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that injuries were caused to the victim on the spur of the moment and none of the accused had any intention to kill Devi Ram PW-1 and others. 2. 11. Learned AGA has assailed the impugned judgment and order on the following grounds: 1. That learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that injuries were caused to the victim on the spur of the moment and none of the accused had any intention to kill Devi Ram PW-1 and others. 2. That learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was made out. 3. That learned Sessions Judge having found all the accused guilty for offence under Section 325 I.P.C. erred in not awarding substantive sentence to each one of them thereunder as they belonged to the same family. 4. The learned Sessions Judge erred in not awarding any substantive sentence to any accused under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. but erred in extending to each one of them the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. 5. That the learned Sessions Judge having believed the entire prosecution story erred in not convicting all the accused persons for the offence under Sections 307, 325, 324, 323 I.P.C. 12. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents submitted that the occurrence took place on the spur of that moment and there appears to be no premeditation for committing the crime; that all the four accused persons came to take water from the tube well, had no intention to cause death of the informant or any other persons there. They were resisted because it was not their turn on that day for taking water. Hence they assaulted on the injured persons. Therefore, it is discernible from evidence on record and circumstances that the accused persons had not come in an prepared manner with knowledge to cause death of any person by their acts at that spur of moment. 13. Having considered the submissions made by learned AGA, counsel for the accused respondents and on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it is apparent from the said order that the learned trial Judge after scrutiny and analysis of the entire prosecution evidence arrived at a conclusion that the accused persons in furtherance of common intention made assault on Devi Ram, Karan Singh, Seeta Ram and Shiv Kumar. They caused grievous hurt to Shiv Kumar and Sita Ram and are liable to be convicted under Section 324/323 I.P.C. The prosecution has been successfully proved the case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. They caused grievous hurt to Shiv Kumar and Sita Ram and are liable to be convicted under Section 324/323 I.P.C. The prosecution has been successfully proved the case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. The learned trial Judge was of the firm view that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt against the accused-respondents under Section 307 I.P.C. and, accordingly, acquitted them under Section 307 I.P.C. 14. It is appropriate to take note of the fact at this stage that in so far as the alleged assault as was caused on the informant's side was not grave in nature which could not be said to be fatal. More so injury report and testimony of the witnesses as placed on record are found to be inconformity with the reasons and findings arrived at by the trial Judge while analyzing cumulative facts of the case and evidence as available on record. We have given thoughtful consideration to all these facts and circumstances of the case and we are of the firm view that the trial Judge while appreciating the gravity of the offence from point of view of Section 307 I.P.C., justly recorded finding that assault cannot be imputed the character of such nature that it was always intended to cause death. In this view of the matter, finding of acquittal as recorded under Section 307 I.P.C. is wholly justified under the facts and circumstances of the case which needs no interference at this stage by us. 15. In so far as the point of conviction and sentence of the accused under Sections 324/323 is concerned, the trial Judge was wholly justified in extending the benefit of probation of the Offenders Act/ Section 360 Cr.P.C. to the accused persons for the reason that Marpit or assault in question was made, under facts and circumstances which took place on the spur of the moment without any plan or premeditation, therefore, we do not see any reason to alter the sentence imposed on the accused persons. There is no reason to enhance the sentence for the reason that conviction recorded is categorized as minor offence and benefit which is available to the accused persons is reasonably provided to them in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. We are of the firm view that no case of enhancement of sentence is made out by the appellant-State. We are of the firm view that no case of enhancement of sentence is made out by the appellant-State. Therefore, the plea for enhancement is positively denied and is, accordingly, rejected. We hereby confirm the order passed under the probation of Offenders Act/Section 360 Cr.P.C. with specific observations that nothing on this has been pointed pointed out by the State that the accused persons have misused provision of probation of Offenders Act/ Section 360 Cr.P.C. while they were given benefit of probation. 16. It is our firm view that in this case there are no compelling and substantial reasons for interfering with the appeal against acquittal order passed by the learned trial Judge against the accused-respondents. The findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are not perverse or contrary to the evidence and material on record. We find no infirmity in the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge for acquitting the accused-respondents. The view taken by the learned trial Judge while acquitting the accused-respondents was reasonable and possible. We are accordingly not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Judge in respect of the accused-respondents. 17. In view of the above, the appeal for enhancement of sentence filed on behalf of the State against the accused-respondents is liable to be dismissed. 18. The Government Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. ___________