JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Mr. N. Mahanjan, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. 2. The present appeal has been instituted by the appellant under Section 3 74 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., assailing the judgment and order dated 29.06.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No.30(J)/2012, convicting the appellant, herein, under Section 3 04 under Part-II of INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 (three) years and 3 (three) months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default, to undergo RI for further 6 (Six) months. 3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded during the trial is that one Hari Chandra Das, lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Jogighopa Police Station, inter alia, alleging therein that the appellant, herein, Sri Sudam Chandra Das, who was his son-in-law, had on 22.12.2011 at around 5.00 pm trespassed into their house and assaulted his wife Sanu Bala Das with a lathi, causing severe injuries on her person. It was further alleged in the FIR that although the victim was provided with treatment, but on the next date, i.e. on 23.12.2011 at around 4 a.m., she succumbed to her injuries. The police on receipt of the said FIR registered a case and on completion of investigation, laid a charge-sheet under Section 3 02 IPC against the appellant, herein. The Trial Court considering the materials coming on record famed a charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant, herein. On the said charge being read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, accordingly a trial ensued. During the trial, the prosecution examined 11 (eleven) witnesses and thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant had not adduced any witness. On the said charge being read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, accordingly a trial ensued. During the trial, the prosecution examined 11 (eleven) witnesses and thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant had not adduced any witness. The Trial Court on appreciating the evidences coming on record during the trial was pleased, vide judgment and order dated 29.06.2013, to draw conclusions to the effect that as the incident had happened on sudden quarrel and there was no prior motive or intention on the part of the appellant, herein, to cause death to the appellant, his act was found to be one which would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and would be punishable under 304 Part-II IPC. Basing on the said conclusion, the Trial Court proceeded to convict the appellant, herein, under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced him as noticed, herein above. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant has instituted the present appeal. 5. The conclusion drawn by the Trial Court in the matter being relevant, the same is extracted herein below:- “49. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has considerably proved the case against the accused Sudam Das found him guilty for causing the death of his mother-in-law Sanu Bala Das. 50. Now, the question comes whether accused had intention to cause death of his mother- in-law. It appears from the evidence on record that the daughter of the deceased Manjuri has been eloped with the accused and subsequently their marriage was held. But the deceased or her family members did not accept the marriage of the accused with their daughter Manjuri. So, their relation was not cordial since the days of the marriage between Manjuri and the accused. From the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the relation between the accused and the deceased or her family members became so strained for which the accused had taken such a drastic step to commit murder of his mother-in-law. The cause of death in the opinion of Doctor is due to respiratory depression and severe neural shock as a result of fracture dislocation of ociputoatlanto joint with evulsion of spinal cord following violent trauma. 51. The cause of death in the opinion of Doctor is due to respiratory depression and severe neural shock as a result of fracture dislocation of ociputoatlanto joint with evulsion of spinal cord following violent trauma. 51. It appears from the evidence on record that the accused used a stick while assaulting the deceased which cannot be stated as murderer weapon. It is also seen that after the incident the deceased was taken to pharmacy wherein bandage was wrapped up in her head. She was not taken to hospital for treatment. So, negligence to treat the wound being a contributing factor. Though, an intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death cannot be attributed to him, knowledge is attributable to accused that an injury by a stick on the head was likely to cause death. As the incident happened on sudden quarrel and there was no prior motive as intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased, the act of this accused would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Part-II of Section 304 IPC. ” 6. Having drawn the said conclusion, the learned Trial Court proceeded to convict the appellant under Section 304 Part-II IPC. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court in the light of the evidence coming on record during the trial and find that the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court to have been drawn basing on a due and proper appreciation of the evidence coming on record. No infirmity having been found with the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court in the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 IPC Part-II is to be upheld. 7. Mr. N. Mahajan, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court after having drawn the above conclusion with regard to the charge under Section 304 Part-II IPC being proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, herein, while proceeding to sentence the appellant, herein, the Trial Court did not invoke the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short “Act of 1958). The learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that no special reason was adduced in the judgment by the learned Trial Court for not extending the benefit under the provision of the Act of 1958 to the appellant, herein. The said issue raised by the learned Amicus Curiae was vehemently objected to by the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, who has contended that the evidence coming on record having proved beyond reasonable doubt, the act on the part of the appellant, herein, to have caused death to the victim, no leniency is called to be extended to the appellant, herein. This Court having already upheld the conviction of the appellant by the Trial Court, would now examine the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae with regard to the entitlement of the appellant, herein, to be extended with the benefits under the said Act of 1958. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sitaram Paswan –vs- State of Bihar reported in 2005 (13) SCC 110 , has laid down the principles for exercise of the discretionary power under the Act of 1958 and also the consideration required to be made in this connection. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that while exercising the discretionary power under the Act of 1958, the Courts are to consider the circumstance of the case, the nature of the offence and the character of the offender. It was also laid down that while considering the nature of the offence, the Court must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact, which the offence had on the victim. It was concluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the benefit available to the accused under Section 4 of the Act of 1958, is subject to the limitation embodied in the provision and the word ‘may’ clearly indicates that the discretion is vested with the Court whether or not to release the offender in exercise of the powers under Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act having regard to the nature of the offence and the character of the offender and overall circumstances of the case. . 9. . 9. It is to be noted that it is a settled position of law that such power can be exercised even by the Appellate Court or revisional Court or by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while hearing the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of the said settled position of law, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court while proceeding to sentence the petitioner, herein, after convicting him under 304 Part II IPC, had not taken into consideration the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in its proper perspective. 11. It is permissible for a Court not to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to an accused, however, the consideration thereof, is required to be extended. It is also noticed from the judgment impugned in the present appeal that the learned Trial Court upon hearing appellant, herein, on the point of sentence had noticed that he is the only earning member of the family which consists of his wife, a daughter, who was around 5 months, at that relevant point of time, his age old ailing parents and unmarried sister. The said considerations are relevant and when it is also considered along with the fact that the incident as involved in the matter had so arisen on account of altercation occasioning in the matter and the appellant, herein, having no intention to cause death to the victim, it also being not alleged that the appellant, herein, was involved in similar offence, either prior to the offence alleged against him in the present proceeding and/or during the pendency of the same, this Court is of the considered view that the benefit under the provisions of the Act of 1958 would be required to be extended to the appellant, herein. This Court also has noticed that the incident had occasioned on 22.12.2011 and around 14 years have passed thereon, and during this period, the appellant, herein, was litigating before the Trial Court as well as before this Court in the present appeal. 12 . This Court also has noticed that the incident had occasioned on 22.12.2011 and around 14 years have passed thereon, and during this period, the appellant, herein, was litigating before the Trial Court as well as before this Court in the present appeal. 12 . In view of the above discussion, considering the said provision of law and the period that has elapsed from the date of the incident, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be extended to the appellant, herein, by this Court. 13 . Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the appellant be given the benefit under the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and consequently, the sentence of imprisonment for 3 (three) years and 3 (three) months as imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Trial Court stands modified and it is provided that instead of sending the appellant to jail, he should be extended the benefit of Under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 14 . In view of the conclusions reached by this Court, it is directed that the appellant, herein, shall file 2 (two) sureties to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rupee ten Thousand) only, each, along with personal bond before the learned Trial Court i.e. learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon and undertake to the effect that the appellant shall maintain peace and good behavior through the period of one year from the date of filing of the personal bond. The aforesaid bond be filed by the appellant within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of this judgment. 15 . With the above observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of. 16 . Registry to send down the records of the matter to the Trial Court along with the copy of this order for information and necessary action. 17 . Before parting with the records of the case, this Court records its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. N. Mahajan, learned amicus curiae, towards disposal of the matter.