JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.01.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No. 46 of 2012, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.04.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur, Deoghar passed in G.R. No. 87 of 1999 arising out of Madhupur P.S. Case No. 41 of 1999, by which petitioner was held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 325 and 342 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years along with fine of Rs. 1000/-, for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 342 I.P.C., with default stipulation, has been maintained and confirmed by the appellate court extending benefit of doubt to other co-accused persons / appellants. 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 02.03.1999 at about 12: 00 noon, the informant Shyam Lal Mandal was returning to his house from the pond after bathing the buffalos and when he reached near mill of Falguni Mandal (petitioner), meanwhile, Falguni Mandal (petitioner) and Arun Mandal surrounded him and when he started escaping, Binod Mandal, Tuntun Mandal and Parmod Mandal caught hold of him and Binod Mandal inflicted a farsa blow on his head caused grievous injuries and Falguni Mandal (petitioner) assaulted with an iron rod on his head and leg caused injuries near the elbow and right hand, due to which the informant fell down in unconscious state. The injured was brought to hospital and he was examined by Dr. Ramesh Kumar, who found following injuries on his person: Lacerated wound on left parietal bond size 10 Cm. X ½ Cm X Scalp Deep, Diffuse swelling of 3 Cm. Diameter, on left hand at the function of 2 / 3 and 1 / 3 of radial bone. X-ray was done and X-ray elicits fracture of radius and ulna bone and diffuse swelling of left leg 3 Cm, Diameter near ankle joint and X-ray elicits fracture in lower fibula and tribia. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, Madhupur P.S. Case No. 41 of 1999 was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 342, 307, 326, 325 / 34 of the I.P.C. 5. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, Madhupur P.S. Case No. 41 of 1999 was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 342, 307, 326, 325 / 34 of the I.P.C. 5. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offences under Section 341, 323, 342 and 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against five accused persons including the present petitioner. All the accused persons have faced trial and learned trial court has held the present petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 325 and 342 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo as stated above. 6. Other co-accused persons namely, Binod Mandal, Pramod Mandal, Tuntun Mandal, Arun Mandal were held guilty for the offence under Sections 342 I.P.C. and instead of awarding them sentence for any substantive period of imprisonment, they were released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 7. Thereafter, all the five convicts have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2012 and the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 30.01.2016 after reappraisal of oral and documentary evidence available on record upheld and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of petitioner Falguni Mandal for the offence under Sections 325 / 342 of I.P.C., but appellant nos. 2 to 5 were held not guilty for the offence under Section 342 of the I.P.C. and their conviction for the offence under Section 342 was set aside, which was never challenged by prosecution by filing any appeal. The sole convict Falguni Mandal has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in this revision. 8. This appeal has been admitted for final hearing vide order dated 25.04.2016 on limited question of quantum of sentence only. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of similar evidence, co-accused persons have been given benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges. The present petitioner has been convicted without any cogent and reliable evidence. The sentence passed against the petitioner is disproportionate to the offence committed by him. As per the injury report of the informant, he has sustained fracture injury on his hands and leg, but the very genesis of occurrence and motive for assault has not been proved. The present petitioner has been convicted without any cogent and reliable evidence. The sentence passed against the petitioner is disproportionate to the offence committed by him. As per the injury report of the informant, he has sustained fracture injury on his hands and leg, but the very genesis of occurrence and motive for assault has not been proved. The learned trial court as well as appellate court has failed to appreciate that it was first offence of the petitioner and he was never convicted for any offence even though without assigning any special reasons, the petitioner has been declined the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for which he is entitled. 10. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there is unrebutted testimony of informant-cum-sole injured of this case, which is corroborated from the evidence of medical officer, who has been examined as (P.W.-5). Fracture injury has been found on the part of body which has been specifically deposed by informant to be caused by iron rod blow inflicted by the present petitioner. Therefore, his conviction of sentence passed by the learned trial court and confirmed by appellate court suffers from no perversity or warrant any interference by this Court and this revision is fit to be dismissed on merits. 11. So far benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, admittedly it is first offence of the petitioner and other point may be considered. 12. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both sides. 13. It appears that so far charge under Section 325 of I.P.C. against the petitioner is concerned, it has been proved beyond doubt through cogent and reliable evidence available on record and it requires no interference. 13. It appears that so far charge under Section 325 of I.P.C. against the petitioner is concerned, it has been proved beyond doubt through cogent and reliable evidence available on record and it requires no interference. It is obvious from perusal of record that in course of trial, defence has adduced documentary evidence Exhibit-A, B & C, which are certified copy of judgments passed in T.R. No. 381/2006 dated 19.07.2006 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur; Certified copy of judgment dated 30.01.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. –I in Sessions Case No. 182 of 1998 / 322 / 2002 and Certified copy of judgment dated 16.02.2005 passed in P.C.R. Case No. 115 of 1998 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur, Deoghar, which shows that the land dispute was going on between the parties since long and they were under litigating terms, but in none of the cases, the petitioner has been convicted for any offence. The prosecution has also not brought on record regarding any previous conviction of the petitioner, therefore, it is his first offence, which has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial court as well as appellate court without assigning any special reason as per requirement of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 14. In my considered view, the petitioner deserves the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him for the offence alleged to be committed by him. 15. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, impugned judgment of conviction of petitioner requires no interference and confirmed, but having regard to age, character, antecedents and facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and directed to be released upon furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety for maintaining peace and good behavior for a term of one year from the date of the furnishing bond before the concerned trial court. The learned trial court shall obtain report from the Probation Officer periodically and in case of failure of terms and conditions of the bond, the petitioner shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to him. 16. In light of above observation, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in the sentence as stated above. 17. The learned trial court shall obtain report from the Probation Officer periodically and in case of failure of terms and conditions of the bond, the petitioner shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to him. 16. In light of above observation, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in the sentence as stated above. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the concerned trial court for information and needful.