The court applied the Probation of Offenders Act and considered the nature of injuries and the sentencing of the accused petitioners in reaching its decision.

1. - This revision petition has been directed against the judjement dated 27th April, 1983, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar convicted all the accused under Sections 447, 147, 325 read with 140 and 323 read with 149 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, sentenced accused Narain Lal Peerama Lal and Ram Lal, under Section 147 Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, similarly, under Section 325 read with 149 IPC, all the above named petitioners have been sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-. As far as Section 447 Indian Penal Code is concerned, one month's sentence has been awarded to all the above named petitioners and under Section 322 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code 3 months rigorous imprisonment was awarded. Rest of the petitioners have been granted advantage of Probation of Offenders Act.

2. I have perused the record of the case and I do not find any force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The conviction of the all the accused petitioners is maintained.

3. The petitioners and the complaints are the relatives. The incident took-place in the month of Feb. 1981. The incident that has also taken-place may be on account of dispute between the ladies and there was no previous enemity. Ex. P4, is the injury report of Jamini. The Doctor, has opined that injury No. 1, is grevious in nature. He has also found that middle bone coming outside of the right leg. The Doctor, his also opined that this injury has been caused by the sharp edged weapon. Ex. P 3, is the X-ray report. The radiologist, has reported fratcture of tibia and fibula bone on their mid shaft.

4. After considering the evidence, the trial court rejected the version that injury No. 1, was caused by the sharp edged weapon. All the accused petitioners were also acquitted under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC. There is consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses that none of the accused petitioner had any sharp edged weapon with him. Only some of them had Lathis with them.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor, cannot be allowed to raise the point of incised injury, in a revision petition. It was their duty to file appeal against the acquittal under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC, if they feel aggrieved at all. Taking conspicuous picture of the case as well as taking note of the of Dilbhag Singh v. The Slate of Punjab reported in AIR 979 SC 680 as well as the case of Vishnu Devi v. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 1979 SC 964 , I am of the view that the court-below was not justified in not extending benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, to the 3 petitioners namely Narain Ram Peerma Ram and Ram Lal. All the petitioners have been convicted with the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code as such they should be treated at par. The revision is partly accepted and the conviction is maintained. The sentence awarded to all the 3 accused petitioners namely Narain Ram, Peerma Ram and Ram Lal, is hereby set aside to the extent of imprisonment. How ever, they will have to pay the fine which has been imposted on them by the court-below, within a period of two months in the trial-court. In case, they fail to pay the fine they will have to undergo sentence awarded to them for nonpayment of fine. As far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is set-aside and it is directed that they will enter into a personal bond before the trial court together with one surety in the amount of Rs. 2,000/- within a period of two months from today to keep peace and good behaviour and not to commit any offence for the period of 3 years.

6. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of accordingly, as far as Narain Ram, Peerma Ram and Ram Lal. The revision petition filed by rest of the accused petitioners namely Ramchandra, Mst. Anchi and Mst. Ramkori, is dismissed.Revision partly allowed.

*******