JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Originally this appeal was filed by the three appellants, out of them, Appellant No.2 Usman Mia has been died during the pendency of this appeal and to this effect, an affidavit has been filed by the State. Therefore, this appeal stands abated as against appellant no. 2 Usman Mian, vide order dated 06.01.2025 passed by this court. 3. Heard, Mr. Deepak Kumar Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant nos. 1 & 3 and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava learned APP appearing for the State. 4. Above named the appellants have preferred this criminal appeal challenging their conviction and sentence dated 25.09.2006 and 27.09.2006 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VII, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1996 convicted for the offence under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced to undergo R.I. of three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation. FACTUAL MATRIX 5. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 18.11.1994 at about 08:30 AM, when the informant went for nature’s call, then accused persons surrounded and started beating him, resulting which he sustained injuries on left knee, lower portion of right leg and also sustained injuries on his wrists. Thereafter, he fell on the ground. The witnesses of the incident are daughter-in-law of Dayal Mahto, Isar Mahto, Shilo Mahto, Jagdish, Toto and other villagers, who belongs to Daldal Village. 6. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered as Sadar, Giridih P.S. Case No. 156 of 1994 against the above named accused persons for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 325/34 of the I.P.C. 7. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case has submitted charge sheet against accused persons for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 325/34 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of offence, the case was committed for the trial thereafter, the charges were framed for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307 of the I.P.C., which they denied and claimed to be tried. 8. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons altogether six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.-1 : Toto Yadav P.W.-2 : Asagar Ansari (Informant). P.W.-3 : Suidu Khatoon. P.W.-4 : Mennu Khatoon. P.W.-5 : Dr. Suresh Chandra Sharma. 8. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons altogether six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.-1 : Toto Yadav P.W.-2 : Asagar Ansari (Informant). P.W.-3 : Suidu Khatoon. P.W.-4 : Mennu Khatoon. P.W.-5 : Dr. Suresh Chandra Sharma. P.W.-6 : Jyotis Chandra Pathak (formal witness). 9. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit-1 : Written Report. Exhibit-1/1 : Endorsement of the Officer-In-Charge of Police on the written report. Exhibit-2 : Injury Report. Exhibit-3 : Signature of Ayodhayay Rai, then Officer-In-Charge of Dhanwar P.S. on formal FIR. Exhibit-3/1 : Formal FIR. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants instead of challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction has confined his argument on the point of not extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and has submitted that there is a case of land dispute between the parties and due to harvesting of paddy crops. The incident happened in a sudden manner causing some injuries to the informant party. Counter case has also been filed by the present appellants. 11. It is further submitted that it is appellants’ first offence as they have never been convicted earlier for any other offence, but the learned trial court has not considered the said aspect of this matter and sentenced the appellants with Rigorous Imprisonment of three years along with fine of Rs.1,000/-. Appellants have no criminal background and after conviction in this case, appellants have also maintained peace and have not involved in any other criminal activities. This fact was also not considered by the learned trial court and plea for extending the benefit of Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 has been denied without recording any special reasons. Hence, the appellants deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of awarding of substantive sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the learned trial court. 12. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions and defended the impugned judgment on merits, but so far extending the benefit of Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 is concerned, he has not raised any serious objection. 13. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 14. 13. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 14. The learned trial court has held that the offence under Sections 341, 323, 307 of the I.P.C. has not been made in this case and the trial court has held the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 325/34 of the I.P.C. From perusal of evidence of injured witnesses, namely, P.W.-2 Asgar Ansari and his injury report proved by the P.W.-5, Dr. Dr. Suresh Chandra Sharma, it appears that the doctor has found following injuries:- (I) Bruise red color with hematoma 10 cmx6 cm on the right ankle and feet as well as fracture of tibia bone (clinically) 3 cm above malleolus. The injury was caused by hard and blunt substance. (II) Incised wound with blood clot 1 cmx0.5 cmx0.5 cm, on right leg anterior aspect 6 cm below the knee. The injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon (simple in nature). (III) Incised wound with blood clot 1.5 cmx0.5 cmx0.5 cm in interior aspect of right leg 2 cm, below the injury no. 2. The injury caused by sharp cutting weapon (simple in nature). (IV) Incised wound with blood clot 1 cmx0.5 cmx0.5 cm on left leg interior aspect 10 cm below the knee. Injury is simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. (V) Incised wound 2 cmx1 cmx0.5 cm on left leg, 4 cm below the injury no. 4, injury is simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon. (VI) Abrasion 12cmx6cm on lateral aspect of left thigh caused by hard and blunt object (simple in nature). (VII) Bruise red in colour 8 cmx4 cm on lateral aspect of right thigh. Injury simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. (VIII) Abrasion 5.6 cmx4 cm with haemotoma on left forearm, injury simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. (IX) Bruise red in colour with haemotoma 4 cmx2 cm on right forearm wrist and fracture of radius at two places no. 1, 3 cm above (proximal) to wrist and the no. 2- 6 cm below elbow joint with surrounding haemotoma. The injury is grievous in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. (X) Bruise red in colour 6.5 cmx3.5 cm on left side front of chest. 1, 3 cm above (proximal) to wrist and the no. 2- 6 cm below elbow joint with surrounding haemotoma. The injury is grievous in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. (X) Bruise red in colour 6.5 cmx3.5 cm on left side front of chest. Injury simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. (XI) Bruise red in colour with haemotoma 6.4 cmx4 cm on right side back of chest. Injury simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. (XII) Bruise red in colour with haemotoma 2 cmx2 cm on forehead. Injury simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. The doctor has opined that the injury no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 might have been caused by bhala and rest of the injury may be caused by iron and lathi. 15. Considering the overall factual background, genesis, manner of occurrence and the nature of offence committed by the appellants, their age, character and antecedents, it appears expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act of 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded 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, 1958 upon furnishing bond of Rs.5000/- with one surety of like amount each for maintaining 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 required. 16. Appellants are further directed to appear before the concerned trial court within three months from the date of this order and furnish the bail bond as per direction of this Court. 17. 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. 18. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, this appeal is dismissed on merits with the modification in sentence as stated above. 19. 17. 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. 18. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, this appeal is dismissed on merits with the modification in sentence as stated above. 19. Appellant are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds. Sureties shall also be discharged. 20. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. 21. Pending I.A, if any, is disposed of.