JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J. 1. Heard Mr. I.A. Hazariaka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 2 . This revision is directed against the appellate court judgment and order dated 31.07.2009/11.08.2009 , passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang at Mangaldai in Crl. Appeal No. 13(D-1) of 2007 by which the judgment and order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai, dated 26.02.2007 passed in G.R. Case No. 800/2002 was modified by setting aside the conviction under Section 341 IPC and affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 325 of the I.P.C alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees fived thousand only) in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment of 1 (one) month.. 3 . The fact of the case in brief, is that on 17.11.2002 at about 3.00 P.M. at Hirapara under Kalaigaon Police Station in the Darrang District, the appellant gave blow over the leg of Sri Rajen Das (hereinafter mentioned as the injured person) by means of stick causing fracture of leg while he was returning home from Kaligaon after marketing having restrained him on the way. On the basis of an FIR regarding the matter, lodged by the wife of the injured person, Kaligaon P.S. Case No. 91/2002 under Sections 341/325 IPC has been registered and the Investigating Officer (I.O.) charge sheeted the appellant under the aforesaid Sections of law after causing investigation into the matter. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid after conducting the full trial of the case, giving rise to the aforesaid appeal. 4 . I have perused the evidence on record. As per the medical record tendered by PW 7, the victim sustained injury on his right leg and lower third and there was fracture on his leg bone and the facture of both bones of right leg was detected from X-Ray. Although, the PW-7 during the cross-examination stated that such injury was caused by falling from bicycle, the injury itself was established. 5 . PW- 6, Sri Rajen Das is the injured of the instant case. Although, the PW-7 during the cross-examination stated that such injury was caused by falling from bicycle, the injury itself was established. 5 . PW- 6, Sri Rajen Das is the injured of the instant case. From his evidence, it reveals that the appellant gave a blow over his right leg from his back side by a stick and due to the blow he fell down and thereafter his relatives brought him to Kalaigaon Hospital first and therefrom, he was referred to Mangaldai Civil Hospital where he had to stay for 10 (ten) days as indoor patient and another 6/7 months time was taken for his recovery. In cross-examination, PW-6 has confirmed that the occurrence took place in front of the shop house of Sri Dhananjay Das. During cross-examination of the injured the defence side could not extract anything except denial. In cross- examination, it has been suggested by the defence side that the injured got such injury by falling over the ground from the bicycle due to collision with the bicycle of the appellant. The defence side has examined the aforesaid Dhananjay Das as DW-1. From the trend of cross examination of the injured person by the defence side, it has been clearly established that the injured sustained injury and the appellant was present on the spot at the time of getting such injury. From the evidence of DW-1, it reveals that due to collision of bicycle of the appellant and the injured person, they fell down from their bicycle but none of them sustained any injury. DW-1 further deposed that they sent the injured by boarding a hand-barrow, since the injured was not in a position to go on foot due to intoxication. But at the same time, DW-1 has stated that the injured purchased sugar from his shop and proceeded by riding a bicycle. 6 . Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned appellate court accepted the aforesaid testimony of the PWs and discarded the testimony of DW-1. 7 . PWs. 1 and 4, Sri Dharma Kanta Das and Smti Sareswari Das are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. From their evidence, it reveals that they saw the appellant was assaulting the injured by a stick. During their cross-examination, the defence side could not extract anything favourable to the defence version except denial. 7 . PWs. 1 and 4, Sri Dharma Kanta Das and Smti Sareswari Das are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. From their evidence, it reveals that they saw the appellant was assaulting the injured by a stick. During their cross-examination, the defence side could not extract anything favourable to the defence version except denial. From the evidence of PWs-1 and 4, it has been established that the house of PW-1 is only 50 cubits away from the place of occurrence while the house of other witnesses is 100 yards away. That PW-4 witnessed the occurrence from her house. 8 . In cross-examination of PW-1, the defence side put forward a suggestion that the injured sustained such injury by falling due to darkness. Both witnesses are brother and sister of the injured but their testimony cannot be discarded merely on that ground. 9 . Similarly, PW-2, Smti Kusheswari Das is the wife of the injured person. She has corroborated the facts and circumstances of the case. She has deposed that her house is situated 100 (one hundred) meters away from the place of occurrence and that having heard outcry, she went to the place of occurrences and saw her husband was lying there and the appellant was running away from there. During her cross-examination, the defence side could not extract anything favourable to the defence version except denial. 10 . PW-5, Sri Bijoy Chandra Das is another eye-witness of the incident was deposed to have seen the accused assaulting the injured. 11 . From the perusal of the evidence on record and the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court, I do not find that the Courts below have committed any impropriety or illegality in arriving at the findings with regard to the culpability of the accused /petitioner under Section 325 of the IPC and therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the said findings. However, having regard to the fact that the occurrence of the present case is of the year 2002 and long 24 years have elapsed since then and the present petitioner who is said to be aged about 50 years, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be made if the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are extended to the present petitioner. Accordingly, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court as affirmed by the learned appellate Court under Section 325 IPC is set aside. 12 . Consequently, the petitioner, who is on previous bail, is directed to execute a fresh bond of Rs. 50,000/- to appear and receive the sentence when called upon, within a period not exceeding three years. 13 . Consequently the petition stands disposed of.