JUDGMENT : ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 1. The Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 2012 has been filed by the victim against the judgment dated 24.11.2012, passed by learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 265 of 2011, State vs. Kailash Singh and Another, by which the learned trial court has acquitted the respondents-accused from the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”), Section 504 IPC and Section 506 IPC. 2. The Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2012 has been filed by the appellants – accused against the judgment dated 24.11.2012, passed by learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 254 of 2006, State vs. Amarjeet Singh and Others, by which the appellants-accused have been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years each and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. They have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each along with a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2013 has been filed by the victim against the judgment dated 24.11.2012, passed by learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 254 of 2006, State vs. Amarjeet Singh and Others, by which the respondents-accused Amarjeet Singh, Ravindra Singh, Surya Narayan Singh alias Shiv Narayan Singh and Maan Singh have been acquitted of the charge of Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the respondents-accused Vishwanath Singh and Sher Singh have been acquitted of the charge of Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 4. The case of the prosecution in Sessions Trial No. 265 of 2011 is that the informant Surya Narayan Singh (PW1) gave a written information (Ext. Ka.1) to the police station on 04.11.2005 that there was a land dispute between him and the family of his uncle. 4. The case of the prosecution in Sessions Trial No. 265 of 2011 is that the informant Surya Narayan Singh (PW1) gave a written information (Ext. Ka.1) to the police station on 04.11.2005 that there was a land dispute between him and the family of his uncle. On 04.11.2005, at 8 in the morning, the respondents-accused beat him, his brother Amarjeet Singh (PW2), brother Ravindra Singh (PW4) and his father Vishwanath Singh with lathi and sickle. They were examined by Dr. R.K. Singh (PW3). The First Information Report (Ext. Ka.7) was registered by Constable Lal Singh (PW5). The Investigating Officer had filed the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka. 10) under Sections 324, 504, 506 IPC. 5. Charges were framed against the accused. As they pleaded innocence, trial was held. The prosecution examined six witnesses. 6. Statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. They denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution. 7. The case of the prosecution in Sessions Trial No. 254 of 2006 is that the informant Rajesh Singh (PW1) gave a written information (Ext. Ka.1) to the police station on 04.11.2005 that there was a land dispute between him and the family of his uncle. Today at 8 in the morning, when accused were breaking the bunds of his field, his father stopped them. All the accused were carrying lathi, spear and knife in their hands. He, his mother Smt. Kismati Devi (PW2), his father Kailash Singh (PW3) and his younger brother Ajay Singh (PW6) were beaten by them, due to which they suffered grievous injuries. This incident was seen by Surendra and others. The injured were treated by Dr. R.K. Sinha (PW4). The First Information Report (Ext. Ka.7) was registered by H.C. P. Padam Singh (PW5). The Investigating Officer had filed the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.11) under Sections 307, 325, 323, 34 IPC against the accused except accused Maan Singh and Sher Singh. Maan Singh and Sher Singh were summoned by the trial court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 8. Charges were framed against all the accused. They pleaded innocence, therefore, trial was held. 9. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. 10. Statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. They denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. 8. Charges were framed against all the accused. They pleaded innocence, therefore, trial was held. 9. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. 10. Statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. They denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. The Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 2012 will be treated as a leading case. 13. The law is well settled that the order of acquittal strengthen the presumption of the innocence of the accused. Equally, it is duty of the Court to see that the guilty do not escape from the punishment. Therefore, we have carefully assessed the evidence, adduced by the prosecution. 14. There is no positive evidence placed on record against the respondents-accused Kailash Singh and Smt. Kismati Devi to convict them under Section 324 IPC, Section 504 IPC and Section 506 IPC. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 2012 is liable to be dismissed. 15. There is no evidence on record to show that the act of respondents-accused in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2013 was done with intention or knowledge and under such circumstances to cause the bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause death or that such bodily injury was in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause such death by doing the act known to them to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Apart from this, there is no positive and conclusive evidence placed on record against the respondents Vishwanath Singh and Sher Singh by the prosecution to prove its case under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the view taken by learned trial court. As a result, the Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2013 is liable to be dismissed. 16. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the incident took place in the year, 2005. The appellants are not previous convict. During the trial, they were on bail and conditions of the bail were never misused by them. 17. After advancing the said submissions, Mr. 16. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the incident took place in the year, 2005. The appellants are not previous convict. During the trial, they were on bail and conditions of the bail were never misused by them. 17. After advancing the said submissions, Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate has requested to alter the sentence and give them (appellants) the benefit of probation under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 18. The said submissions have not been opposed by the State. 19. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submits that as per the report, received from the Probation Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, the appellants are not previous convict and their conduct and behavior are good. 20. The present matter is pending since 2005. The appellants have not been convicted in any other case and their conduct and behavior are good. 21. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems appropriate that the sentence, passed against the appellants, should be altered and the benefit of probation should be granted to them. 22. Consequently, without altering the findings of the trial court, the nature of the sentence is being altered. 23. Resultantly, the appellants, namely, Amarjeet Singh, Ravindra Singh, Surya Narayan Singh alias Shiv Narayan and Maan Singh be released on probation on good conduct for a period of six months, on their executing a bond of Rs.30,000/- each with one reliable surety of the like amount to appear and receive sentence when they are called during such period. In the meantime, they are directed to keep the peace and be of good behavior. Appellants are further directed to appear before the Probation Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, within a week from today. 24. The Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2012 is decided accordingly. 25. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment to the concerned court and to the Probation Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, for information and necessary action. 26. The Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 2012 and the Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2013 are dismissed. 27. A copy of this judgment be placed in the connected appeals.