ORDER : 1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This Criminal Revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 with Section 360 Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgments dated 27.05.199 passed in criminal regular case no.613/91 by the learned trial court as well as the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in criminal appeal no.5/99 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioners may be acquitted from the charges of offence under Section 147 IPC and offences under Section 326 IPC and 326 read with Section 149 IPC respectively. It is also prayed that in alternate the petitioners may kindly be given the benefit of probation under Section 360 of Cr.P.C.”” 3. Vide impugned judgment dated 27.05.1999 the learned Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushalgarh in Criminal Regular Case No.613/91 convicted revision-petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 326 & 326/149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo as under:- (i) Diya was convicted under Sections 147 & 326 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 15 days’ S.I. & 02 years S.I. respectively and a fine of Rs.200/-in default of payment of which he was further ordered to undergo 15 days’ S.I. (ii) Rest of the petitioners were convicted under Sections 147 & 326/149 IPC and were sentenced to undergo 15 days S.I. & 02 years S.I. respectively and a fine of Rs.200/-in default of payment of which they were further ordered to undergo 15 days’ S.I. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners submits that the offence under Section 147, 326 & 326/149 IPC, as per the Indian Penal Code, are punishable with a maximum imprisonment up to 02 years & 10 years respectively, therefore, the petitioners may be granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged incident occurred at the spur of moment and, therefore, there is a lack of intention or planning on the part of the accused, and there is lack of common object. 6. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged incident occurred at the spur of moment and, therefore, there is a lack of intention or planning on the part of the accused, and there is lack of common object. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners submits that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents to their credit. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners further submits that the sentence awarded to Mukesh, Manji, Aalu, Huka was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 07.06.2001, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.57/2001 and sentence awarded to Diya, Hakji Maniya was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide order 21.05.2001 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45/2001 and, thus, they are on bail. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners however, makes a limited prayer that the petitioners may be granted benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). “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 offender, 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 sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3)… (4)… (5)... (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3)… (4)… (5)... ” 9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the revision petitions and submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the learned court below, the revisionist-petitioners are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 11. In Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas (1974) 4 SCC, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- “The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society. In recalcitrant cases, punishment has to be deterrent so that others similarly minded may warn themselves of the hazards of taking to a career of crime. But the novice who strays into the path of crime ought, in the interest of society, be treated as being socially sick. Crimes are not always rooted in criminal tendencies and their origin may lie in psychological factors induced by hunger, want and poverty. The Probation of Offenders act recognises the importance of environmental influence in the commission of crimes and prescribes a remedy whereby the offender can be reformed and rehabilitated in society.” 11.1 In Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan RLW 2022 Raj 945, a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:- “Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act nature of offence is one of the major-criteria for determining whether benefit of this provision should be given to the concerned offender or not. His age would be another relevant factor and the circumstance in which the offence was committed may be 3rd important consideration... ” 11.2 In Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2017) 2 SCC 198 , while reiterating the ratio decidendi laid down in Dalbir Singh Vs. His age would be another relevant factor and the circumstance in which the offence was committed may be 3rd important consideration... ” 11.2 In Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2017) 2 SCC 198 , while reiterating the ratio decidendi laid down in Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “… The Court has further opined that though the discretion as been vested in the court to decide when and how the court should form such opinion, yet the provision itself provides sufficient indication that releasing the convicted person on probation of good conduct must appear to the Court to be expedient...” 11.3 In Lakhvir Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab and Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 763 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court of India, with regard to the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 vis-a-vis those Acts wherein a minimum sentence of imprisonment has been prescribed by the legislature, observed as under:- “Even though, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act') prescribes a minimum sentence of imprisonment for not less than 1 year, an exception was carved out keeping in mind the application of the Act. In Ishar Das (supra), this Court noted that if the object of the legislature was that the Act does not apply to all cases where a minimum sentence of imprisonment is prescribed, there was no reason to specifically provide an exception for Section 5(2) of the PC Act. The fact that Section 18 of the Act does not include any other such offences where a mandatory minimum sentence has been prescribed suggests that the Act may be invoked in such other offences. A more nuanced interpretation on this aspect was given in CCE v. Bahubali (1979) 2 SCC 279 . It was opined that the Act may not apply in cases where a specific law enacted after 1958 prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence, and the law contains a non-obstante clause. Thus, the benefits of the Act did not apply in case of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by special legislation enacted after the Act.5 It is in this context, it was observed in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das (Supra) that the court cannot award a sentence less than the mandatory sentence prescribed by the statute. Thus, the benefits of the Act did not apply in case of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by special legislation enacted after the Act.5 It is in this context, it was observed in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das (Supra) that the court cannot award a sentence less than the mandatory sentence prescribed by the statute. We are of the view that the corollary to the aforesaid legal decisions ends with a conclusion that the benefit of probation under the said Act is not excluded by the provisions of the mandatory minimum sentence Under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code, the offence in the present case. In fact, the observation made in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab ILR (1981) P & H 1 are in the same context.” 12. The testimonies of witnesses creates doubt in the mind of the Court, since the evidence on record clearly shows that the lathi during the scuffle between the parties broke into four pieces but PW-6 i.e. Bheru Singh sated that it broke into three pieces. Moreover, doctor’s testimony shows that the lathi was made of flimsy wood not capable of causing a person’s death. 13. This Court is conscious of the fact that the maximum punishment that may be awarded under Sections 147, 326 & 326/149 is up to 02 years & 10 years respectively and, therefore, Section 4 of the Act of 1958 will apply in the present case. 14. This Court observes that there is no material on record that the revisionist-petitioners have any criminal antecedents. Thus, the revisionist-petitioners are entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 14.1 Thus, this Court, after taking into due consideration the legislative intent of the Act and the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arvind Mohan (supra), Mohd. Hashim (supra) and in Lakhvir Singh, and by this Hon’ble Court in Brij Lal (supra) and taking into note the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, deems it appropriate to extend the benefit of the Act to the revisionist-petitioner. 15. Resultantly, the present revision petition is partly allowed. Hashim (supra) and in Lakhvir Singh, and by this Hon’ble Court in Brij Lal (supra) and taking into note the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, deems it appropriate to extend the benefit of the Act to the revisionist-petitioner. 15. Resultantly, the present revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the present revisionist-petitioners for the offence under Sections 147, 326 & 326/149 IPC, as recorded by the learned Court below in the impugned judgment, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgment, and directs that the petitioners shall be released on probation, under Section 4 of the Act, upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-and two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/-each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with a further undertaking that he shall maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of two years and shall not repeat the offence. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.