JUDGMENT
K.S. Lodha, J.
1. The revision, has been filed by the six petitioners against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar dated 21-8-1980, by which their appeal against the judgment of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, dated 5-8-1973 had been partly rejected. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate had convicted the appellants Hari Singh, Sukhdeo Singh, Amrit Singh Milkha Singh, Hardeep Singh and Sajan Singh under Section 147 IPC and sentenced them to three month’s R.I. each with a fine of Rs. 100/- each He had further convicted them under Section 447, IPC and sentenced them to two month’s R.I. and a fine of Rs. 150/- each He also convicted appellant Hari Singh under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to six month’s R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-. He also convicted accused Hardeep Singh under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him to one month’s R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Hardeep Singh from the charge under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. He however, maintained the convictions of the appellants under Section 147 and 447 IPC as also the conviction of appellant Hari Singh under Sections 324 IPC but reduced the sentences under Section 147 and 447 IPC to one month’s R.I. each and he further reduced the sentence of Hari Singh under Section 324, IPC from six months R.I. to three month’s R.I. Aggrieved of the part dismissal of their appeal, the appellants have come up before this Court.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned P.P. and have gone through the record.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has candidly not challenged the convictions of the appellants for the offence under Section 147, 447, IPC and that of Hari Singh under Section 324, IPC but has prayed that looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners should have been granted the benefit of probation. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to accede to this request and the learned P.P. has also no serious objection to this. In this view of the matter, I need not state the facts of the case at length. But suffice it to say that the dipute between the parties arose on account of a dispute about possession of agricultural land situated in village 3 K.K. square No. 36, The case of the complainant party was that initially this land had been allotted on temporay basis to Smt. Banti about 25 years prior to the date of this incident, which is alleged to have taken place on 11-5-1974 but latter Hari Singh, accused, how ever, got a permanent allotment of this land made in his favour, although possession continued with Smt. Banti. It appears that proceedings under Section 145 Cr. PC. had also been initiated by Smt. Banti and although at one stage the possession of Hari Singh had been declared by the Magistrate, that order had been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge and the matter had been remanded to the trial court and I am informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that matter is still pending in revision before this Court and has not finally been disposed of. Both the lower courts, on the basis of the evidence on record, have found that Smt. Banti had been in possession of the land in dispute and the accused party had tried to prevent her from cultivating or irrigating the land on the date of this dispute and after entering into the land in dispute Hari Singh bad caused an injury with a sharp edged weapon on the person of Smt. Banti. It may be stated here that while arriving at the finding of the possession in favour of Smt. Banti, the trial court had relied upon a copy of the ‘Girdawari’ of 1973-74 but that Girdawari has not been shown to have been proved, however, the learned Sessions Judge has not relied upon this Girdawari and has come to the conclusion of the possession of Smt. Banti on the basis of the oral evidence as well as some circumstantial evidence. Thus, when both the courts below have found the possession of Smt. Banti on the land in dispute, I need not interfere with that finding in revision specially when the only question which has been urged before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is with regard to the question of sentence.
4. Looking to the circumstance, namely, that there was a dispute about land which earlier had been allotted on temporary basis to Smt. Banti but latter had been allotted permanently to Hari Singh, that the incident had taken place as far back as on 11-5-1974 and that only a minor injury had been caused to Smt. Banti although accused are said to have been armed with guns and a sword, I am of the opinion that now at this stage of the case, the accused need not be sent to jail and it will be in the interest of justice to grant them the benefit of probation.
5. The revision is therefore, partly accepted. The convictions of the appellants, as stated above are maintained but the sentences awarded to them are set aside. They are not sentenced to any punishment forthwith but shall be released on probation on their entering into” a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- each with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur to appear and receive sentence called upon to do so within a period of six months and to maintain the peace and be of good behaviour in the meantime. The petitioners are on bail and need not surrender. They are granted one month’s time to submit the bonds as indicated above.