JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.06.2006 and 17.06.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in Sessions Trial Case No.194 of 2000 whereby and whereunder all the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for one years for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for one and a half years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the I.P.C., S.I. for two months for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the I.P.C., (S.I.) for one month for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the I.P.C., appellants No.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and appellants No.2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. 3. The prosecution case is based on written information by Damodar Modi (informant) stating inter alia that on 27.07.1998, while ploughing his land with his brother and nephew, a dispute arose with the accused persons over land ownership and they were assaulted by the accused persons, including Rama Rai and others, who were armed with weapons. The attack with the intention to kill allegedly led by Sakaldeo Rai, resulted in injuries to the informant and his family and witnesses were present during the incident. On the basis of written information of the informant, Dhanwar P.S. Case No.158 of 1998 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 326, 323, 341, 324, 307, 447 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the aforesaid offences including Section 149 of the I.P.C. and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I for trial and disposal which was registered as Sessions Case No.194 of 2000. Charges were framed against the accused persons which were read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Charges were framed against the accused persons which were read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. After conclusion of trial, the appellants were held guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself to the point of non-extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act of 1958’) to the appellants to which they deserve. It is further submitted that the appellants have been implicated in this case due to land dispute between the parties. Admittedly, the informant parties were ploughing the land of appellants which was protested and in a sudden manner, there was exchange of assault from both sides and there was a counter case bearing Dhanwar P.S. Case No.159 of 1998 registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 341, 307 of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that initially F.I.R. was lodged against five accused persons out of them Biren Rai and Jisu Rai were juvenile on the date of occurrence and their trial was separated and present appellants were tried in this case and have been found guilty for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 447, 323, 307/34 of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that no offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is attracted in this case at all as the required intention and knowledge to constitute the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. The informant Damodar Modi has sustained two injuries one is opined to be grievous in nature and second simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and injured Sahdeo Modi has sustained two injuries both are opined to be simple in nature one is caused by hard and blunt substance and another is caused by sharp cutting weapon and Anil Modi has sustained only one injury which was also opined to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. It is further submitted that appellants No.1 and 3 were also injured in the said incident at the instance of informant party of this case. It is further submitted that appellants No.1 and 3 were also injured in the said incident at the instance of informant party of this case. None of the injuries were found to be dangerous to life to the member of either party as such conviction and sentence of appellants for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of the I.P.C. is totally unwarranted which is fit to be set aside. It was appellants first offence and they have never been convicted for any other offence and the rest of the sentence of the appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 447 and 323 of the I.P.C. may be sustained but the appellants, being first offender and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view that there was bonafide land dispute between the parties, deserve benefit of the Act of 1958. 7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has defended the impugned judgment and order on merits and submitted that injured Sahdeo and Damodar have sustained head injury which was likely to cause death. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and this appeal is fit to be dismissed. 8. It appears that in the course of trial altogether eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of them P.W.-5 Sahdeo Modi, P.W.-6 Anil Modi and P.W.-9 Damodar Modi are witness-cum-injured. P.W.-5 Sahdeo Modi is the injured brother of the informant. According to his evidence, he stated that while ploughing land (plot no. 315) with his family members, Rama Rai's wife objected and subsequently, the accused persons armed with weapons attacked upon him. Rama Rai struck him on the head with a sword. Upendra Rai and Biren Rai assaulted him with rods and bars. Anil Rai and Sakaldeo Rai were also attacked, and Anil's wristwatch was stolen. The injured were taken to Dhanwar hospital. He further stated that he had purchased the land in dispute from Jagdish Rai and Guli Rai through a registered sale deed in 1962 and had possession of it since then and there was a quarrel over this land in 1974, which led to a panchayati. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had also purchased plot no. 912 from Jagdish and Guli Rai and there was a dispute regarding this land also in 1996. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had also purchased plot no. 912 from Jagdish and Guli Rai and there was a dispute regarding this land also in 1996. P.W.-6 Anil Modi is the injured nephew of the informant. According to his evidence on the day of the incident, he was with the informant on the disputed land when the accused persons arrived armed with weapons. They objected to their ploughing the land, assaulted the informant and Sahdeo Modi and also attacked him with a lathi and Sakaldeo Rai snatched a wristwatch from him. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was standing 30-40 feet away from the informant during the incident. He also mentioned that the informant was hospitalized for seven days, while he himself was admitted to the hospital for one day. P.W.-9 Damodar Modi is the injured witness-cum-informant. According to his evidence on 27.07.1989 in the morning, while he and his family were working on the disputed land (plot no. 315), Rama Rai's wife objected to their activity and subsequently, the accused attacked him; Rama Rai struck him with a sword, Dharam assaulted him with a rod and Jisu hit him with a lathi, causing fatal injuries. Other accused Biren assaulted Sahdeo Modi and Anil Modi and Sakaldeo stole Anil Modi's wristwatch. He further stated that his father had purchased the land in 1962 from the accused grandfather through registered sale deeds. In his cross-examination, he stated that after the death of Guli Rai, a quarrel arose between the parties over the disputed land which led to a panchayati where a document (Ext.5) was created. He further stated that he had purchased land from the accused without dispute prior to 1976. He clarified that Rama Rai gave only one sword blow to him though he tried to defend himself, but he sustained a head injury. He also pointed out that he showed the injury to the police at that time. Although, he had shown bloodstained clothes to the police, but they did not seize them. 9. Other witnesses have also corroborated the scene but from the medical evidence of the injured persons as well as the genesis, manner and circumstances under which the offence was committed and exchange of assault from both sides, it appears that the ingredients of offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. 9. Other witnesses have also corroborated the scene but from the medical evidence of the injured persons as well as the genesis, manner and circumstances under which the offence was committed and exchange of assault from both sides, it appears that the ingredients of offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside. In view of oral and documentary evidence available on record, it appears that the prosecution has been able to establish the charges under Section 147, 148, 323, 341, 447, of the I.P.C. against the appellants. It is also apparent from the record that there was bonafide land dispute between the parties and counter case was also lodged by the appellants against the informant party of this case. The appellants were also injured in this case and it is first offence of the appellants. The incident was of the year 1998 and more than two and a half decades have been passed since the date of commission of offence. Since then both parties have maintained peace and harmony and not involved in any other case. At the time of occurrence, the appellant No.1 was 50 years' old and appellants No.2 and 3 were 36 and 33 years' old respectively. 10. Considering the overall factual background, genesis, manner of occurrence and the circumstances under which the offences were committed by the appellants, their age, character and antecedents, it appears expedient in the interest of justice to extend the benefit of the Act of 1958 to the appellants instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment as inflicted by the learned trial court. Therefore, appellants are directed to appear before the concerned trial court within three months from the date of this judgment and the learned trial court is directed to release the appellants giving the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act upon furnishing bond of Rs.5000/- with one surety of like amount each with condition to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of furnishing the bond to the satisfaction of concerned Trial Court. The learned trial court may call for a report from the concerned District Probation Officer, if so desired and release the appellants on furnishing the aforesaid bond. In case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be called upon by the concerned trial court to appear and receive the sentence already awarded to them by the concerned trial court. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is party allowed with modification in sentence as stated above. 12. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful. 13. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.