ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S. K. Murtty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the Opposite Party-State. 2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 10.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Appeal No. 39/2011, whereby the learned appellate court has upheld the conviction of the petitioners for offence under Sections 148, 149, 324, 325, 326 and 341 of IPC passed by trial court’s judgment dated 09.08.2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in T.R. No. 302/2011 arising out of Birni P.S. Case No. 44/2000, corresponding to G.R. No. 945/2000. However, the learned appellate court held that the separate sentence under Section 149 of IPC is not sustainable under law, which was set-aside. Further, the petitioners were directed to be released under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act upon execution of bond of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court below with condition to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of three years. It was also directed that in case of violation of the condition of bond, they may be called upon to sustain the substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the learned court below. Arguments of the petitioners 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below, but there is no independent witness in the instant case, although the alleged occurrence has taken place in open field. He submits that P.W.-1 is the informant of the case and other witnesses except P.W.-5 (I.O. of the case), are the close relatives of the informant. He submits that there are several contradictions in the evidences of the witnesses, which have not been properly considered by the learned courts below. He also submits that there is land dispute between the parties and accordingly, benefit of doubt should have been given by the learned court below in favour of the petitioners. He submits that it is a matter of case and counter case and accordingly, conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Arguments of the Opposite Party-State 4. He submits that it is a matter of case and counter case and accordingly, conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Arguments of the Opposite Party-State 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party- State, while opposing the prayer, at the outset, submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after scrutinizing evidences on record and witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined from the side of the defence and minor contradictions cannot be ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction. He submits that injury reports of the victims have also been exhibited before the learned court below, which have corroborated the ocular evidence. The learned counsel submits that there is no scope for interference in the revisional jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case. He also submits that the learned appellate court has modified the sentence of all the petitioners and has converted the same for only to the extent of executing of bond of Rs. 5,000/- each with condition to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of three years. He also submitted that there was no interim order passed by this Court staying the furnishing of bond. From perusal of the Lower Courts Records, it appears that the bonds have already been furnished by the petitioners before the learned court below on 23.03.2012. Findings of this Court 5. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 16.06.2000, when the informant went to his land where he had sown maize crop one day ago, he saw that the petitioners who were ploughing their field, also started ploughing the field of all three sharers, which was objected by the informant. On that, accused persons threatened to leave him and the informant returned to his house. Thereafter, on the same day, at about 7:00 p.m. informant alongwith his brothers and nephew again went to the land and asked the accused persons not to plough their land, on which accused persons assaulted them by tangi, farsa, lathi and danda. It was alleged that Bablu Mian gave lathi blow to the informant on his leg, due to which he fell down. Informant was also assaulted by Sahadat Mian with tangi on his head, due to which, he sustained cut injury and blood also oozed out. Ayub Mian assaulted the informant on his left-hand thumb and informant became unconscious. It was alleged that Bablu Mian gave lathi blow to the informant on his leg, due to which he fell down. Informant was also assaulted by Sahadat Mian with tangi on his head, due to which, he sustained cut injury and blood also oozed out. Ayub Mian assaulted the informant on his left-hand thumb and informant became unconscious. The reason behind the occurrence was the land dispute between the parties. It was further alleged that Panchayati was held for partition of the land, but no paper was prepared. 6. On the basis of the above information, First Information Report was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 447, 323, 324, 325 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused persons under the same sections and thereafter cognizance was taken under Sections 147, 148, 341/149, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 and 447/149 of the IPC and substance of the accusation were explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 02.06.2011, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, they denied the allegation leveled against them and have stated that they are innocent. 7. This Court finds that during the course of trial, altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution including the witness P.W.-1 (the informant) and P.W.-5 (I.O. of the case). This Court finds that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have thoroughly considered the evidences of the witnesses and the witnesses were also thoroughly cross-examined from the side of the defence. The prosecution has also produced certain documentary evidence before the learned court below. Ext.-1 is the fardbeyan of Idrish Mian, Ext. 1/1 is the endorsement of O/c on FIR, Ext.-1/2 is the forwarding on fardbeyan, Ext.-2 is the FIR, Ext.-3 to 3/8 are the requisition for medical treatment of injured persons and Ext.-4 to 4/8 are the injury reports of injured persons. 8. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court has clearly recorded that on the basis of oral and documentary evidences available on record, it was crystal clear that all the accused persons after forming an unlawful assembly have attacked upon the informant-party by various weapons and persons, namely, Idrish Mian, Md. Sadique Ansri, Hussain Mian, Mahajan Ansari, Sahadat Ansari, Md. Sadique Ansri, Hussain Mian, Mahajan Ansari, Sahadat Ansari, Md. Yakub, Md. Mustkim, Md. Kurban Ansari and Md. Banshi Ansari were injured in the said incident. As such, the prosecution has proved the offences charged against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and the learned appellate court found that there was no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court, except the sentence of the convicts for the offence under Section 149 of IPC for three years and accordingly, the appellate court was of the view that Section 149 of IPC does not provide any separate sentence as an offence rather it is a principle of constructive liability to determine the penal alleged on persons when offence is committed by five or more persons in furtherance of their common intention and accordingly, learned appellate court had set-aside the separate sentence under Section 149 of IPC. The learned appellate court also accepted the plea of the petitioners about extension of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and after considering the Probation Offender’s Report, it found that there was no previous conviction of the convicts and there was every chance of mending themselves and accordingly, the learned appellate court having regard to the age, character, antecedent of the convicts, nature of offence committed by them found it expedient in the interest of justice to release the petitioners under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act upon execution of bond of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court below with condition to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of three years with condition to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of three years instead of awarding any substantive sentence as awarded by the learned trial court. 9. This Court finds that there has been no interim order staying the operation of para-14 of the appellate court’s judgment regarding furnishing of bond. The learned Lower Court Records indicates that the bond was already furnished by the petitioners before the learned court below on 23.03.2012. The period of three years has already elapsed from the date of furnishing of bond. 10. The learned Lower Court Records indicates that the bond was already furnished by the petitioners before the learned court below on 23.03.2012. The period of three years has already elapsed from the date of furnishing of bond. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below in regard to the offence committed by the petitioners, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and accordingly, the present criminal revision application is hereby dismissed. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed. 13. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court concerned. 14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘E-mail/FAX’. Revision dismissed