JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. It appears from the record that during pendency of this appeal, appellant No.1 viz. Kewal Mahto @ Kewal Gope has died and appeal in respect of the appellant No.1 has already been abated vide order dated 06.12.2024. 2. Heard Ms. Savita Kumari, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.09.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Koderma in Sessions Trial No.519 of 1998 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.424 of 1996), whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 147, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for three years for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that Saryug Yadav (informant) has lodged the F.I.R. stating inter alia that his sister, Srimatia Devi, was married six years ago but her husband, Kameshwar Yadav (appellant No.3) and in-laws were torturing her for dowry of Rs.40,000/-. Informant has further alleged that on 12.06.1996, at around 03:00 P.M., informant along with his father and 10 other respectable persons went to matrimonial house of his sister to resolve the issue through a Panchayati. Informant has further alleged that Kewal Singh (one of the accused) gathered 25–30 persons for the Panchayati but till the evening no Panchayati was held. However, in the evening, Kewal Mahto (now deceased) and the brother-in-law of the informant suddenly accused them of being dacoits and raised an alarm. The informant along with his father and other persons were surrounded and attacked with lathis (sticks). Ten members of the informant’s group managed to flee away, but the informant and his father were severely injured. However, in the evening, Kewal Mahto (now deceased) and the brother-in-law of the informant suddenly accused them of being dacoits and raised an alarm. The informant along with his father and other persons were surrounded and attacked with lathis (sticks). Ten members of the informant’s group managed to flee away, but the informant and his father were severely injured. Informant’s father lost consciousness and when the informant regained consciousness, he realized that some people were taking them to the hospital.On the basis of above fardbeyan, the case was instituted as Koderma (Telaiya) P.S. Case No.221 of 1996 for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 498(A) of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Trial No.519 of 1998 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.424 of 1996) was registered. Charges were framed against the accused appellants under Sections 147, 341, 323, 325, 307 of the I.P.C. of the Indian Penal Code and two appellants viz. Kewal Mahto (now deceased) and Kameshwar Yadav have been separately charged under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was read over and explained to them, to which they denied and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial, altogether eleven witnesses were examined and following documentary evidence were also adduced by the prosecution: Exhibit 1 : Injury report of Babun Yadav Exhibit 2 : Injury report of informant 7. 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. 8. Learned amicus curiae for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has drawn the attention of the court towards 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. 8. Learned amicus curiae for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has drawn the attention of the court towards 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 submitted that appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 147, 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. and maximum sentence has been awarded for 3 years R.I. The present appellants are alleged to have caused injuries to the informant Sarju Yadav (P.W.7) and his father Babun Yadav (P.W.9) by hard and blunt substance, which were opined to be simple in nature except two injuries to the informant which were opined to be grievous in nature but not dangerous to his life. The learned Trial Court without recording any special reasons has denied the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 to the appellants. It is further submitted that during pendency of the appeal, one of the appellants has died and at the time of impugned judgment in the year 1998 rest of the appellants were 40 years’ old, 36 years’ old, 30 years’ old and 33 years’ old and now they are above 55 years’ old and suffering from several diseases, therefore, sending the appellants in jail custody after lapse of three decades, no useful purpose will be solved. Hence, impugned judgment and order may be modified/altered and the appellant may be extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment as granted by the learned Trial Court and this appeal may be disposed of. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection against the arguments made on behalf of the appellants rather he has defended the impugned judgment and order on merits. 10. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of both side and also perused the impugned judgment and order along with materials available on record. 11. It appears that in the course of trial altogether eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of them P.W.7 viz. Sarju Yadav, who is the injured witness-cum- informant and P.W.9. viz. 11. It appears that in the course of trial altogether eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of them P.W.7 viz. Sarju Yadav, who is the injured witness-cum- informant and P.W.9. viz. Babun Yadav, who is the injured father of the informant, who have categorically deposed that while they were going at Village Yadu Tand for holding the Panchayati, where informant’s sister was married, suddenly the voice of thief was raised and the occurrence of assault was started by the appellants along with other accused persons and Kewal Mahto (deceased) gave a lathi blow on the head of the informant’s father and Yugal, Dinesh and Prakash assaulted the informant with lathi on his hand and head. Other accused persons had beaten him with lathis and this informant sustained injuries on his hand and head. P.W.-11 Dr. Hari Darshan Singh has examined the injured P.W.7 viz. Sarju Yadav and found following injuries: (i) Abrasion over middle scalp. (ii) Fracture of lower end of right-side ulna. (iii) Dislocation of right finger in left hand. (iv) Swelling over right leg. Above injury Nos.(i) and (iv) were opined to be simple in nature and injury Nos.(ii) and (iii) were opined to be grievous in nature which is not dangerous to life. All the above injuries caused by hard and blunt substance.P.W.-11 Dr. Hari Darshan Singh has also examined the injured P.W.9 viz. Babun Yadav and found following injuries: (i) Lacerated injury over scalp in middle. (ii) Abrasion over left scapular region. (iii) Lacerated injury over left elbow interior aspect. (iv) Lacerated injuries over right forearm over posterior aspect. All the above injuries were opined to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. 12. From the discussion of the above evidence, there remains no doubt that the offence under Sections 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. are made out, hence, their conviction under Sections 323 and 325 is upheld. However, from the perusal of impugned judgment and order of sentence, it appears that the learned Trial Court has not recorded any special reasons for not extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 to which the appellants deserve as there was family dispute between the parties. However, from the perusal of impugned judgment and order of sentence, it appears that the learned Trial Court has not recorded any special reasons for not extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 to which the appellants deserve as there was family dispute between the parties. It is pleaded that since the occurrence is of the year 1996 and appellant in the aforesaid period has also maintained peace and harmony and the learned Trial Court without recording any special reasons has declined to extend the benefit of the Act of 1958 to the appellants. 13. Considering the overall factual background, genesis, manner of occurrence, the nature of injury sustained by the informant and his father and the offence committed by the appellants, their age, character and antecedent, it appears expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment immediately as inflicted by the learned Trial Court. In this view of the matter, 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 also 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 to the satisfaction of concerned Trial Court with condition to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of furnishing the bond. The learned Trial Court may also 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 substantive sentence of imprisonment already awarded to them by the learned Trial Court. 14. In view of above discussions and observations, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent as stated above. 15. Considering the proper assistance of learned amicus curiae in disposal of this case, we direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to pay remuneration of Rs.2,500/- to Ms. Savita Kumari, the learned amicus curiae. 16. In view of above discussions and observations, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent as stated above. 15. Considering the proper assistance of learned amicus curiae in disposal of this case, we direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to pay remuneration of Rs.2,500/- to Ms. Savita Kumari, the learned amicus curiae. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. 17. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.