JUDGMENT : By Court: Heard Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal appeal challenging their conviction and sentence dated 02.09.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., 7th, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 173 of 2002,whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-for the offence under Section 325 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 23.02.2001 at about 6:00 A.M., in the morning the informant Rama Shankar Bhagat was returning to his home after attending nature’s call and when he reached near his house where accused Sheo Shankar Bhagat was cutting cauliflower in his field. On seeing the informant, the accused Sheo Shankar Bhagat abused the informant. At that time, other above-named accused being armed with lathi and danda also came there. Thereafter, all the accused persons hit the informant by means of lathi and danda, resulting into injuries on both knees, elbow and back of the informant. The accused persons committed the occurrence due to previous enmity and land dispute. At the time of occurrence, the son of the informant namely, Birendra Bhagat came to save the informant and thereupon all the accused persons also assaulted Birendra Bhagat, resulting into injuries on his body. 4. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered against the accused for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 506, 307 and 34 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case has submitted charge sheet under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. against the appellants. After submission of charge sheet, the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where the charges were framed under Sections 307, 323, 341, 506 and 325 of the I.P.C., to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. After submission of charge sheet, the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where the charges were framed under Sections 307, 323, 341, 506 and 325 of the I.P.C., to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against all accused persons, altogether six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit-1 : Fardbeyan of Informant. Exhibit-2 : Injury Report of Informant. Exhibit-3 : Signature of Informant on Fardbeyan. Exhibit-4 : Endorsement on Fardbeyan. Exhibit-5 : Formal F.I.R. 8. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to previous enmity and land dispute. However, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. Exhibit-A : C.C. of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., 5th, Dhanbad dated 25.11.2004 passed in S.T. Case No. 202/2001. Exhibit-B : C.C. of order dated 21.02.2002 of Sri Dharam Deo Prasad, Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad passed in M.P. Case Nos. 613/2001 and 614/2001. 9. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, held the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above. 10. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.09.2006, this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the occurrence took place in a sudden manner. There was exchange of assault from both sides and there was counter case also lodged by the present appellants against the informant party of this case. Admittedly, the appellants were held guilty for the offence under Sections 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. and it was brought on record that appellants have no criminal background they have never been convicted for any offence, but their prayer for extension of benefit of Section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was declined by the learned trial court without recording any special reasons. Therefore, without touching the merits of the judgment, learned counsel for the appellants confines himself towards grant of benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. 12. The above plea of the appellants has not been seriously objected by the learned APP appearing for the State. 13. Therefore, without touching the merits of the judgment, learned counsel for the appellants confines himself towards grant of benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. 12. The above plea of the appellants has not been seriously objected by the learned APP appearing for the State. 13. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. 14. It appears that the occurrence took place in a sudden manner and there is case and counter case. The injuries sustained by the informant is not on the vital part of the body, resulting dangerous to life. 15. It appears that the trial court has failed to record the fact that the appellants have no criminal background and no criminal antecedent and they have never been convicted for any offence. 16. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the offences for which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced, the genesis and manner of occurrence, weapon used, age, antecedent and character of the appellants, I am of the considered view that the trial court has failed to record any special reason for not extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment, for which the appellants appear to be entitled. 17. In view of above discussions and reasons, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that the appellants are directed to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing bond of Rs. 5,000/-with one surety instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment passed by the concerned trial court, with condition that they shall be of good behavior and shall maintain peace for a period of one year from the date of furnishing bond. 18. Appellants are further directed to appear before the concerned trial court within three months from the date of this order and furnish the bond as per direction of this Court. 19. The learned trial court shall obtain report from the Probation Officer periodically and in case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to him. 20. 19. The learned trial court shall obtain report from the Probation Officer periodically and in case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to him. 20. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.