B.P. Beri, C.J.
1. This is an application in revision against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur dated June 23, 1971, whereby he has given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner Radhey, Dharmi, Sitaram and Khilli and ordered them to by released on executing bonds of Rs. 2,000/- each for keeping the peace for a period of 2 years, but he ordered petitioners Ramjilal and Yadram to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 325 I.P.C. 3 months' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 325 and 149 I.P.C. and 2 months' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 147 I.P.C. and maintained various amounts of fine.
2. The circumstances, which I need notice for the disposal of this application briefly stated, are these. Panchia kept Mst. Chandra Kala, alleged to be an abducted woman and not belonging to his caste in his house. The accused persons, who were his neighbours, resented this unconventional behaviour on the part of Panchia and it was on the evening of 23rd Mirch, 1969 at 8 P.M. Ramjilal, Radhey, Khilli, Hariram, Kriodi, Sitaram, Dharmi, Yadram, Hariram II and Bhulli, went inside the boase of Panchia armed with lathies to give expression to their protest and in that process beat Panehia and when Moharsingh Gyasi intervened, he was also beaten by these persons. A first information report was lodged on March 24, 1969 at 6.15 P.M. They were tried for offences Under Sections 147, 325, 325/149, 447, 323, and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code by the Munsiff Magistrate, Bayana who by his judgment dated 16-9 70 acquited Kriodi, Hariram II and Bhulli. The matter was taken up in appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur gave benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners No. 3 to 6 but sentenced the petitioners No. 1 and 2 to different terms of imprisonment as indicated earlier.
3. Mr. Bhim Raj Purohit, learned Counsel for the applicants, submits that it will be futile to agitate the revision-application in regard to the petitioners No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 and he does not press the revision in regard to them. In regard to the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 he submits that in the first instance it was the left hand thumb which the Doctor says that received the grievous injury. The evidence, urged the learned counsel, was not conclusive as no X Ray examination had been done and his conclusion was the result of his clinical examination. When cross-examined the Doctor was unable to give any cogent reason as to why, if there was any swelling due to grievous injury as observed in his clinical examination, the same was not recorded in the injury report. Therefore, the learned Counsel urges that it will be unsafe to rely on the medical evidence and to hold that an offence Under Section 325 IPC, was committed. He urged that assuming that an offence Under Section 325 IPC was committed the authorship of this injury is not clearly brought home to any individual accused and, therefore, no body can be convicted Under Section 325 IPC. In any event, he argued that when the four accused persons were given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and the first two petitioners not being previous offenders there was no reason why the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act ought not to have been given to them and more so when they have already undergone about 16 days' imprisonment.
4. Mr. N.M. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the State, submits that having regard to the fact that the entire transaction commenced on account of a social resentment and the accused-petitioners No. 1 and 2 not being previous offenders and the incident took place some 5 years back they could also be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act not withstanding the fact that the conviction is Under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Mr. Bhim Raj, thereupon abandoned all his arguments excepting the one for Probation of Offenders Act and I need not consider other arguments.
6. While I am unable to compliment any body giving expression to his social disapproval by becoming violent, still I cannot forget the fact that it was no case which was actuated by any kind of avarice or a long standing enmity or ill-will. The fact that it bad taken place some 5 years ago and the further fact that two applicants have already undergone about a fortnight's imprisonment, the ends of justice would be adequately served now if they are given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act.
7. I, therefore, uphold the convictions of Ramjilal and Yadram as had by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but instead of sentencing them to imprisonment I direct them to execute bond Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act in the sum of Rs. 2000/- each with one surety in the like amount to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year to the satisfaction of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Bayana having regard to the nature of the offence, character and antecedents of the offenders and the circumstances of the case. The bonds shall be executed within one month from today and the Munsiff-Magistrate, Bayana will report to this Court when the bonds have been executed. Failing which they will be arrested and suffer the sentences awarded to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur.
8. To this extent the revision-application is allowed.