IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT BAL CHAND VS. RAM PRASAD AND ORS. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No.825 OF 2007 under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Children) Act, 2000 read with section 357 Cr.P.C. against the order dated December 16, 2006 of Juvenile Justice Board Kota in Case No. 282 of 2005. Date of Order : December 17 ,2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Sayid Ali, for the petitioner. Mr.S.P. Sharma, for the respondent No.1. Mr.B.N.Sandhu, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Bal Chand, father of deceased Dinesh, who was murdered in the incident which took place on July 21, 2005. The report of the incident was lodged by the police on Parcha Bayan of Dalibai, who is mother of deceased Dinesh. In the parcha bayan Dali Bai stated that Ram Prasad beaten her son Dinesh on mouth, eyes , head and stomach by feet and blows, resultantly bleeding started from mouth ears and anus. Dinesh was taken to Hospital. On this parcha bayan an FIR No. 176 of 2005 was registered under section 341, 323 and 308 IPC. Looking to the injuries Dinesh was referred to Jhalwar Hospital and thereafter referred to Kota MBS Hospital where he died during treatment. After the death of Dinesh, section 302 IPC was added and accused was arrested. On august 24, 2005 challan was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board Kota. Charge under sections 302 and 323 IPC was levelled against the accused respondent and as many as 10 prosecution witnesses were examined by the Board. Statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. As per the prosecution witnesses and statement of accused/ respondent himself it is clear that Dinesh deceased died due to beating made by accused. Resultantly Board found accused respondent Ram Prasad guilty of causing death of deceased Dinesh and convicted him under sections 304 and 323 IPC. The Board released the accused respondent on undergone period of 16 months and 9 days and imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/- only upon father of accused respondent. The father of the deceased filed the present revision petition praying therein that the fine imposed by the Juvenile Board Kota may kindly be enhanced to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000 and by way of compensation Rs.1,50,000. Total Rs. 3,00,000 were claimed to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the father of Dinesh, deceased submitted that the power of Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. The power was intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she or his family is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is to some extent a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. It is expected from the courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. The Juvenile Board failed to meet the ends of justice by not providing reasonable amount of compensation. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent is having enough source of income by which petitioner's claim for enhancement of fine and compensation be meet out. But the learned counsel has not been able to point out from where the accused respondent is getting such income. 4. The learned counsel for the accused respondent objected for enhancement of fine and granting compensation. The learned counsel strongly stressed upon the fact that his client is not earning anything at present and is not in a position to pay any enhanced fine or compensation except Rs. 5000/- fine imposed by the Juvenile Board. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand also supported the view of the learned counsel for father of deceased Dinesh and prayed for enhancing the fine or compensation to be payable to the father of the deceased and family. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the Juvenile Justice Board is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The accused respondent has been sentenced to the period already undergone by him and in these circumstances it cannot be said that the order of the Board is in any way unreasonable. The learned counsel for the father of deceased has not been able to point out where from the accused respondent is earning any such amount which can be conveniently be paid as a compensation or enhancement of fine. In these circumstances the order of the Juvenile Justice Board is maintained. In revisional jurisdiction no interference is called for particularly when the other party is satisfied on the quantum of punishment given to the accused respondent. Looking to his age and since there is no means of earning presently with the accused respondent to pay any enhanced fine, this court cannot order for further enhancement of fine or any compensation to be paid to the father of the deceased Dinesh. 6. Thus the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition stands dismissed. The order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated December 16, 2006 is maintained. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/