Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.12 of 1994 Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22. 12. 1993, passed by Shri Ram Nath, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 1985/65 of 1986. 1. Ram Briksh Singh, son of Sri Devan Singh. 2. Karu Singh, son of Sri Sahdeo Singh. 3. Lok Nath Singh, son of Sri Sahdeo Singh. 4. Umesh Singh, son of Sri Ram Briksh Singh. 5. Dinesh Singh, son of Sri Ram Briksh Singh. 6. Rabindra Singh, son of Sri Lok Nath Singh. All residents of Village- Teppa, P.S. Tekari, District- Gaya. .... .... Appellants. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sarjug Singh, son of Dev Balak Singh, resident of Village- Teppa, P.S. Tekari, District- Gaya. .... .... Respondent/s For the Appellants : Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. In view of direction of this Hon’ble Court dated 04.04. 2011, the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, has been received and it has been reported that appellant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Ram Briksh Singh and Karu Singh in this criminal appeal have died on 05. 01. 1997 and 15. 01. 2001, respectively. Hence, the appeal against appellant nos. 1 and 2 stands abated. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and 2 learned counsel for the State. 3. The appellant no. 3 has been convicted for offence under Section 325 I.P.C. and 147 I.P.C. and other appellants have been convicted under Sections, 324, 147, 148 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 325 I.P.C. and two years for offence under Section 324 I.P.C., six months for offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and six months for offence under Section 147 I.P.C. 4. The occurrence took place with regard to grazing of the vegetable in the land of the informant and the occurrence is of the year 1980. The parties are litigation since then and more than thirty years has already been elapsed and there is no offence for conviction and sentence. 5. However, it appears that the trial court did not extend the benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C. and even there is no reason for the same, though, stated it is not desirable in the fact and circumstance of the case. 6. However, having regard to the fact, the occurrence is of the year 1980 and the occurrence took place of grazing of cattle and hence, appellants are entitled 3 for benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offender Act. 7. Hence appellants are ordered to be released on execution of bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount for a period of one year for keeping peace and good behaviour and shall appear as and when require by the court and shall face sentence during the period. With the modification of sentence, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Let copy of this judgment be sent to lower court at the cost of the appellants. Patna High Court The 15th September, 2011. NAFR/m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)