JUDGMENT : KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against a judgment and order dated 23.4.1986 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in ST No. 91 of 1984 whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants Chhotkau and Ram kishore to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 325/34 IPC and six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. However, by the same order appellant-Raja Ram was also convicted under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 IPC, but keeping in view his old age, he was directed to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 4,000/-and two sureties of each amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. 3. As appellant No. 3, Raja Ram died, the appeal filed on his behalf abated vide order dated 02.2.2015. 4. Brief facts of the case are that a written report was lodged by Devi Shanker at the police station Kakwan, district Kanpur Dehat to the effect that on 03.6.1981 at 5.00 PM, while he along with Raghubir Sahai were returning to their house from Khalihan, accused Raja Ram, Chhotkau and Ram Kishore, who were having old enmity, assaulted them with Lathi and Farsa. They are also threatened to kill. Accused also prevented the injured to go to the police station to lodge the report. Due to fear of the accused, informant along with his brother rushed to Kanpur where he got his medical examination done. The informant has also annexed the copy of medical report along with the first information report. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered at case crime No. 71 of 1981, under sections 324/323 IPC at police station Kakwan, district Kanpur. 6. After the registration of the FIR, the case was entrusted to PW-9, SI, B.B. Singh, who recorded the statements of Devi Shanker and Sunder Lal and inspected the spot and prepared site plan. He also recorded the statement of the injured-Raghubir and also saw the injuries on his person. After completing the investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the appellants, which he proved as Ext. Ka-18. 7. He also recorded the statement of the injured-Raghubir and also saw the injuries on his person. After completing the investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the appellants, which he proved as Ext. Ka-18. 7. After committal, the charges were framed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur on 07.06.1984 against the appellants under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 IPC to which accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. To bring home guilt of the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, out of whom, PW 2, Sunder Lal, PW-3 Devi Shanker and PW 7 Raghubir Sahai were the witnesses of the facts and remaining were formal one. 9. PW-1, Ram Kumar deposed that on 05.6.1981 he was posted as Constable-Muharrir at the police station Kakwan, district Kanpur. On that date on the basis of written report handed over by Devi Shanker Shukla along with medical report, he prepared check FIR, which he proved as Ext. Ka-1. 10. PW-2, Sundar Lal, deposed that he knows Raghubir Sahai and Devi Shanker Shukla. Accused-appellants indulged in Marpeet with them at about 4-5 PM. Chhotkau was armed with Kanta and rest were armed with lathis. He further deposed that at the time of incident he was coming from the village. On hearing the shrieks of Raghubir Sahai and Devi Shanker Shukla, when he rushed to the place of occurrence along with Chandra Pal and Rajnu Tiwari, he saw that accused-appellants were assaulting Raghubir Sahai and Devi Shanker Shukla. On their challenge, accused fled by giving threats. They took the injured to hospital. Blood was oozing incessantly from the ear of Raghubir Sahai. Injured-Devi Shanker received injuries on his skull. 11. PW-3, Devi Shanker Shukla is the first informant of the case. He deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 5.00 PM when he along with Raghubir Sahai were returning to their house from Khalihan, accused-appellants met them near abadi of the village. Accused Ram Kishore and Raja Ram were armed with lathis while Chhotkau was having Pharsa. They assaulted both of them. On their shrieks Sunder Lal, Chandra Pal and Rajnu Tewari rushed there and on their challenge, accused fled giving threats of dire consequences if any one reports the matter to the police. Thereafter, they came to Kanpur along with Sunder Lal where they have been medically examined. 12. PW-4, Dr. They assaulted both of them. On their shrieks Sunder Lal, Chandra Pal and Rajnu Tewari rushed there and on their challenge, accused fled giving threats of dire consequences if any one reports the matter to the police. Thereafter, they came to Kanpur along with Sunder Lal where they have been medically examined. 12. PW-4, Dr. V.K. Singhal deposed in his evidence that injured Raghubir Sahai, who was admitted in U.H.M. Hospital has been referred to Medical College on 08.6.1981 for further treatment of his head injury. The injured was under his treatment from 08.6.1981 till 17.6.1981. 13. PW-5, Dr. S.K. Luthra deposed that on 04.6.1981 he was posted at Medical Officer at U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur. On that date, he has medically examined the injured Devi Shanker and found the following injuries on his person: 1. Lacerated wound 6 cm x ¼ x muscle deep on the left parietal region. 2. Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on the left index finger. 3. Abrasion 1 cm x ¼ cm just above right eyebrow. 14. PW-5, Dr. S.K. Luthra further deposed that that he also examined injured-Raghubir Sahai and noted the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 6 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep on the middle of scalp. 2. Incised wound 6 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep 3 cm behind and above right ear. 15. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were fresh. Injury No. 1 was caused by blunt object where injury No. 2 was caused by sharp edged weapon. Injuries were kept under observation and x-ray was advised. On x-ray being done, fractures in parietal and temporal area were found. 16. PW-6, Dr. A.K. Umar deposed that on 4.6.1981 he was posted as Surgeon at U.H.M. Hospital. On that date injured Raghubir Sahai Shukla was admitted, who was treated by him. Injured was discharged on 06.6.1981. 17. PW-7, injured-Raghubir Sahai deposed that he knows the accused-appellants. They live in his village. On the date of occurrence, at about 4.45 PM, when he was coming to his house along with Devi Shanker from Khalihan, Ram Kishore and Raja Ram carrying lathis, Chhotkau armed with Pharsa/Kanta met them. They said to us that they have taken possession of orchard by litigation. Thereafter Raja Ram, Ram Kishore with lathis and Chhotkau with Kanta started assaulting them. They said to us that they have taken possession of orchard by litigation. Thereafter Raja Ram, Ram Kishore with lathis and Chhotkau with Kanta started assaulting them. On their shrieks, Chandra Pal, Ranju Tiwari and Sunder Lal rushed to the spot and saw the occurrence. Thereafter accused fled by giving threats of dire consequences if any one dares to report the matter to the police. 18. PW-8, Dr. Anoop Agrawal deposed in his evidence that on 12.6.1981, he was posted at L.L.R Hospital, Kanpur as Resident Doctor, who got the x-ray of injured Raghubir Sahai done. He further deposed that he found multiple fracture on temporal and parietal region. 19. PW-9, B.B. Singh was the investigating officer of the case, who conducted the investigation and submitted charge sheet. His evidence in details has already been discussed above. 20. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they claimed false implication due to enmity. Accused-Ram Kishore, further stated that the injured have been assaulted by criminals in Khalihan and they have falsely been implicated. However, all the accused have stated that no report whatsoever has been filed from their behalf. 21. Two witnesses namely Ram Vilas and Mahavir were produced in defence to demonstrate that injuries to the injured Devi Shanker and Raghubir Sahai were caused by some unidentified assailants in Khalihan and not by the accused-appellants as suggested by the prosecution. 22. However, learned District and Sessions Judge after assessing and evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. 23. Hence, this appeal. 24. Heard Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Attreya Dutt Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record of the case. 25. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that actually the injured were assaulted by some unidentified criminals and appellants have falsely been implicated in the present case due to enmity. Placing reliance upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ram Chander and others Vs. State of U.P., 2016 (97) ACC 308, learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that learned that District Judge has erred in law in not giving the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the appellants. 26. Placing reliance upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ram Chander and others Vs. State of U.P., 2016 (97) ACC 308, learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that learned that District Judge has erred in law in not giving the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the appellants. 26. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. He further submitted that in view of the injuries received by the injured, the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 27. This Court is not convinced with the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that either on account of enmity or relationship, witnesses are not deposing the correct facts and framed a false case against the appellants leaving the real culprits to go scot free. 28. In this case, there are two injured witnesses, namely PW-3, Devi Shanker and PW-7, Raghubir Sahai. PW-3, Devi Shanker in his evidence deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 5.00 PM when he along with Raghubir Sahai were returning to their house from Khalihan, accused-appellants met them near abadi of the village. Accused Ram Kishore and Raja Ram were armed with lathis while Chhotkau was having Pharsa. They assaulted both of them. Due to the assault by the appellants, injured-PW-3, Devi Shanker received following injuries 1. Lacerated wound 6 cm x ¼ x muscle deep on the left parietal region. 2. Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on the left index finger. 3. Abrasion 1 cm x ¼ cm just above right eyebrow. 29. PW-7, Raghubir Sahai, who was also an injured witness has deposed that on the date of occurrence while he was coming from the Khalihan along with injured Devi Shanker, accused-Ram Kishore and Raja Ram carrying lathis, and Chhotkau armed with Pharsa/Kanta assaulted them, as a result thereof he received one lacerated wound 6 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep on the middle of scalp and one incised wound 6 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep 3 cm behind and above right ear. 30. Doctor, who conducted his medical examination opined that Injury No. 1 was caused by blunt object whereas injury No. 2 was caused by sharp edged weapon. Injuries were kept under observation and x-ray was advised. 30. Doctor, who conducted his medical examination opined that Injury No. 1 was caused by blunt object whereas injury No. 2 was caused by sharp edged weapon. Injuries were kept under observation and x-ray was advised. On x-ray being done, fractures in parietal and temporal area were found. Due to the serious injuries received by PW-7, Raghuvir Sahai, he was initially admitted to L.L.R hospital, Kanpur from 04.6.1981 to 08.6.1981 and thereafter he was admitted to Medical College, Kanpur for further treatment from 08.6.1981 to 17.6.1981. 31. Moreover, in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellants have not stated any specific enmity with the injured. 32. It is a broad day light incident, which took place at 4.45 PM in the month of June. It is not expected from the two injured to depose wrong facts and frame a false case against the appellants leaving the real culprits to go scot free. There is evidence of injured witnesses. 33. In Arjun and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1994 Suppl (1) SCR 616, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “We are not convinced by the aforesaid argument that either on account of animosity or on account of relationship, the witnesses did not divulge the truth but fabricated a false case against the appellants. It is needless to emphasis that enmity is a double edged sword which can cut both ways. However, the fact remains that whether the prosecution witnesses are close relatives of the deceased victim or on inimical terras with the deceased involved in the crime of murder, the witnesses are always interested to see that the real offenders of the crime are booked and they are not, in any case, expected to leave out the real culprits and rope in the innocent persons simply because of the enmity. It is, therefore, not a safe rule to reject their testimony merely on the ground that the complainant and the accused persons were on inimical terms. Similarly the evidence could not be rejected merely on the basis of relationship of the witnesses with the deceased.” 34. In Hari Obula Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1981) 3 SCC 675 , a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has observed thus: “It is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Similarly the evidence could not be rejected merely on the basis of relationship of the witnesses with the deceased.” 34. In Hari Obula Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1981) 3 SCC 675 , a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has observed thus: “It is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony, nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence.” 35. The other contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that learned Sessions Judge has erred in law in not extending the benefit of Probation of First Offender Act to the appellants. 36. Before adverting to this contention of learned counsel for the appellants, it would be useful to quote Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which are reproduced as under: "3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.-When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, and the character of the o ender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4 release him after due admonition." 4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.- (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the o ender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under subsection (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the o ender. (4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. (5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the o ender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned. "6. Restrictions on imprisonment of offenders under twenty-one years of age.- (1) When any person under twenty-one years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment (but not with imprisonment for life), the court by which the person is found guilty shall not sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it would not be desirable to deal with him under section 3 or section 4, and if the court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the offender, it shall record its reasons for doing so. (2) For the purpose of satisfying itself whether it would not be desirable to deal under section 3 or section 4 with an offender referred to in sub- section (1) the court shall call for a report from the probation officer and consider the report, if any, and any other information available to it relating to the character and physical and mental condition of the offender." 37. Perusal of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act makes it clear that while in the case of offenders, who are above the age of 21 years absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the conditions laid down in the appropriate provisions of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case; including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. 38. Admittedly, in the instant case, estimated age of the accused-appellants Chhotkau and Ram Kishore was 30 years and accused-appellant Raja Ram was of 50 years of age at the time of incident. There are two injured in this case. All the appellants have assaulted the injured with premeditated mind and with common intention to cause death with their respective arms and caused grievous injuries. Although the appellants have been convicted under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 IPC, but charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 IPC. 39. The case, Ram Chander (Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is of no help to the appellants as learned Single Judge, while deciding the case has not described the injuries received by the injured in that case and only indicated that injured received several injuries on different parts of the body. 40. In the present case, both the injured, specially injured-PW-7, Raghubir Sahai received several injuries including fractures in parietal and temporal area and as a result thereof initially he was admitted in U.H.M. Hospital from 04.6.1981 to 08.6.1981 and thereafter in the Medical College, Kanpur from 08.6.1981 to 17.6.1981. 41. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1677 held as under: “Parliament made it clear that only if the court forms the opinion that it is expedient to release him on probation for his good conduct regard being had to the circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which cannot be sidelined in forming the said opinion is "the nature of the offence." (emphasis supplied) 42. One of the circumstances which cannot be sidelined in forming the said opinion is "the nature of the offence." (emphasis supplied) 42. Keeping in view the aforesaid injuries and the manner in which the appellants assaulted the injured and caused injuries, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act cannot be extended to the appellants. 43. In view of what has been indicated herein above, the order of the learned trial court calls for no interference. 44. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 45. However, considering the facts that the incident is of the year 1981 and the accused-appellants Chhotkau and Ram Kishore, who were about 30 years of age at the time of occurrence, must be about 68 years of the age, while upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 325/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC, this Court reduced the sentence of the appellants under Sections 325/34 IPC to eight months. 46. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat is directed to take the appellants Chhotkau and Ram Kishore into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to them. 47. Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this judgment to the court concerned for compliance. 48. Compliance report be positively submitted to this Court within eight weeks.