JUDGMENT : Accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.9/2013 on the file of I Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi are challenging the validity of the judgment dated 27.06.2014 in this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under; Upon the complaint lodged by Sri Yousuf S/o Gaji Ansari, Aland Police registered a case in crime No.143/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 R/W Sec.34 of IPC . In the complaint it is contended that daughter of his relative was married to one Wasim and there was a harassment to daughter of Maqthar Ahmed and he had participated in a panchayat in regard to the said dispute. Thereafter, Bilal Ansari and others nurtured enmity against him. In pursuance to said enmity, on 12.7.2012 at about 11.30 p.m. when himself Idrish and others were chitchatting on the staircase of Mashaq Dargah, Bilal Ansari and others abused him in filthy language and also assaulted him with an iron rod and also gave a life threat. Iqbal Ansari assaulted him with a bottle on his head causing blood injury and tried to take away his life. Quarrel was pacified by Idrish and others and the accused party gave a life threat and ran away from the spot. After registering the case, police investigated the matter in detail and filed charge sheet against six persons including the present appellants. 3. Presence of accused was secured and charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. Hence, trial was held. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused ten witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 10 and five documents were relied which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P.1 to P.5. Two material objects viz., iron rod and broken bottle were marked as M.Os.1 and 2. 4. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the accused persons denied the incriminating circumstances put to them. There is no defence evidence; version of the accused to the incident is placed in writing. 5. 4. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the accused persons denied the incriminating circumstances put to them. There is no defence evidence; version of the accused to the incident is placed in writing. 5. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties in detail, acquitted all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, but convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 (appellants) for the offences punishable under Section 324 IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.2,000/- each with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. Sessions Judge has also ordered, out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.3,000/-be paid as compensation to the injured U/S. 357 Cr.P.C. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, appellants are before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the trial Court has grossly erred in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. 8. The reason assigned by the learned Trial Judge for conviction of appellants is erroneous. He further argued that PWs.2 to 7 are relatives of PW.1 and their testimony is interested testimony. He further argued when accused Nos.3 to 6 having been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, there was no special circumstances which persuaded the learned Sessions Judge to convict present appellants. Evidence of the doctor coupled with the wound certificate raise a sufficient doubt as to the ocular testimony of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and such doubt should always enure to the benefit of the accused and thus sought for allowing the appeal. 9. Alternatively, he submitted that in the event of this Court maintaining the conviction order, since the accused are first time offenders this Court may consider grant of probation. 10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader argued that the material available on record clearly establishes the assault made by accused Nos.1 and 2 with M.Os.1 and 2 on the day of incident to PW.1. He also argued that the evidence of injured eyewitnesses should be considered on higher pedestal and there is no reason for PW.1 to falsely implicate the accused persons in the incident. 11. He also argued that the evidence of injured eyewitnesses should be considered on higher pedestal and there is no reason for PW.1 to falsely implicate the accused persons in the incident. 11. He lastly argued that wound certificate marked at Ex.P.3 clearly indicate the number of injures found on the body of PW.1 which sufficiently corroborates the prosecution version and therefore, the conviction as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge needs to be maintained. 12. Insofar as grant of probation is concerned, he contended that having regard to the nature of offence and in the absence of any such plea before the learned trial Judge, this Court cannot grant need not grant probation to the accused. 13. In view of the rival contentions following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that appellants are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference? 2) Whether the sentence is excessive? 14. This Court answers point NO.1 in the negative and point No.2 in the partly affirmative for the following reasons. 15. In the case on hand, complainant is examined as PW.1. He deposed in clear and categorical manner about the complaint averments with graphic details. In his cross-examination, he has specifically answered that if the dispute between daughter of Maqthar Ahmed and her husband Wasim is not settled, accused persons had benefit and therefore, they nurtured enmity against him. Except suggestions that he is depositing falsely, no other worthy material is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1. Mohd. Idrish, Ajgar Ansari, Arif Ansari are PWs.2 to 4. All of them supported the prosecution and specifically deposed that accused persons picked up quarrel and assaulted him with iron rod and broken bottle and they had pacified the quarrel and rescued the complainant. In their cross-examination also no useful material is elicited which would tend to establish that complainant is deposing falsely. PW.5 is mahazar witnesses who has not supported the case of prosecution. PW.6 is an independent witness who also witnessed the incident and accompanied the PW.1 to the hospital. PW.7 is also a circumstantial witness who had supported the prosecution and pacified the quarrel. Cross-examination of these two witnesses did not yield any useful material so as to disbelieve the prosecution version. 16. PW.6 is an independent witness who also witnessed the incident and accompanied the PW.1 to the hospital. PW.7 is also a circumstantial witness who had supported the prosecution and pacified the quarrel. Cross-examination of these two witnesses did not yield any useful material so as to disbelieve the prosecution version. 16. PW.8 is the doctor who examined PW.1 and treated him for the injuries and issued wound certificate vide Ex.P.3. He has stated that he has noticed a blood injury on the head measuring 4 cm x ½ cm. He has stated that said injury is a simple injury and could have been sustained with an assault by iron rod or broken bottle. 17. In his cross-examination he admits the suggestion that if somebody slips from the staircase and his head comes into contact with a wall, injuries noted by him in Ex.P.3 would be caused. 18. PW.9 is officer from GESCOM. His evidence is formal in nature. PW.10 is IO who registered the case and filed charge sheet. In his evidence he has stated about recording of statements of witnesses, conducting spot mahazar, collection of documents and filing charge sheet. In his cross-examination there is no useful material suggested except suggesting that he has filed a false charge sheet which he has denied. 19. The above material on record was considered by the learned Sessions Judge in its proper perspective and came to the conclusion that the material availed on record was not sufficient to convict the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, but in view of the blood injury noted by PW.8 in Ex.P.3 and accused Nos.1 and 2 having assaulted PW.1 with M.Os.1 and 2, recorded a finding that accused Nos.1 and 2 are to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and other accused are to be acquitted. 20. On re-appreciation of the entire material on record, it is seen that the complainant has unequivocally deposed the individual overt-act of the present appellants on the day of incident. Motive for the incident is the settlement made by complainant between Washim and daughter of Maqthar Ahmed and accused nurturing the enmity against the PW.1 in this regard. PW.3 to 5 were independent witnesses deposed in favour of the prosecution. 21. Motive for the incident is the settlement made by complainant between Washim and daughter of Maqthar Ahmed and accused nurturing the enmity against the PW.1 in this regard. PW.3 to 5 were independent witnesses deposed in favour of the prosecution. 21. It is pertinent to note that PW.3 to 5 did not possess any enmity or animosity against the appellant nor extra affinity towards the complainant. As such, their testimony cannot be doubted. Ex.P.3 wound certificate clearly mentions the fresh injury on the head of PW.1 which corroborates the oral testimony of PW.1 and PWs.3 to 5. 22. On considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court is unable to find any legal infirmity or perversity in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 23. No other material is available on record to arrive at a contra finding. Mere acquittal of accused Nos.3 to 6 would not ipso facto make out a case for recording an order of acquittal against the appellants also. Material available on record do suggest the individual overt-acts of appellants which resulted in recording an order of conviction against the appellants. Hence, for the foregoing discussions, point No.1 is answered in negative. 24. POINT NO.2:-The trial Judge has ordered simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.2,000/-each for the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC with default sentence of simple imprisonment of two months in the impugned judgment. While doing so, learned trial judge has noted that age of accused Nos.1 and 2 are 28 years and 25 years respectively. While the trial judge did not consider the grant of probation is not forthcoming from the impugned judgment. 25. It is now well settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that considering grant of probation is a mandatory duty of every trial judge. Non-consideration of grant of probation is thus illegal. 26. There is no bar for the first appellate Court to consider grant of probation. Therefore, this court heard counsel for appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader. Non-consideration of grant of probation is thus illegal. 26. There is no bar for the first appellate Court to consider grant of probation. Therefore, this court heard counsel for appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader. Since accused appellants are first time offenders and in the absence of any criminal antecedents and having regard to the age of the appellants and incident has taken place in the year 2012 and subsequently there is no criminal complaint against the appellants, instead of sentencing the accused persons at once, they are ordered to execute a bond for their good behaviour and if the fine amount is enhanced by another Rs.10,000/-to each of the accused and compensation amount is enhanced, ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. 27. In view of the foregoing discussion following order is passed: ORDER Criminal appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offence u/s 324 IPC, each of the appellants are directed to execute a bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/-each with one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court for their good behaviour on or before 20.05.2021 which shall be in force for a period two years and ordered to pay fine of Rs.12,000/- each (Rs.2000/- ordered by trial judge + Rs.10,000/-ordered by this Court). Out of the fine amount recovered, a sum of Rs.20,000/-is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW.1 in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C. as against Rs.3,000/-ordered by learned Sessions Judge. If there is any breach of bond conditions, sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the Sessions Judge stands restored. Office is directed to return the trial court record with a copy of this judgment forthwith. After deposit of the fine amount by the appellants, trial judge shall secure the presence of PW.1 and thereafter pay the compensation amount. Ordered accordingly.