1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Ram Khilari Vs. State of Rajasthan SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.488/2006. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 29th August, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. S.K. Gupta for the petitioner. Mrs.Nirmala Sharma PP for the State. BY THE COURT: This revision petition under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 17.4.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapurcity District Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Appeal No.11/2005 whereby the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court under section 341, 323 and 325 IPC has been maintained but in stead of sentencing the accused-petitioner gave benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and also awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- in relation to the injuries sustained by the complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of the medical evidence as radiologist was not produced in the case, conviction is not liable to be maintained under section 325 IPC. 2 On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contends that there is sufficient evidence available on record to show that the complainant was beaten by lathi mercilessly and sustained injuries. As regards conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 323, 341 and 325 IPC are concerned, that stands proved in view of the injuries sustained by the complainant in this case, therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions made before me. It is to be seen that Rameshwar, the complainant, lodged a written report (Ex.P-5) in the police station Bamanvas alleging therein that on 22.8.2003 while he was grazing his buffalo in the field, accused Ram Khilari came there. He was also grazing the cattle and he without any reason started abusing the complainant and also gave him beating by lathi, legs and fists. On this report, FIR No.169/2003 was registered under sections 323, 341 and 504 IPC in the police station Bamanwas. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused-petitioner under the aforesaid offence. The prosecution examined five witnesses to prove its case and tendered some documents in evidence. Accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution story and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. It was also stated that the place where the occurrence took place was his field. In defence evidence DW-1 Raju was produced. The learned trial court after hearing both sides 3 and considering the evidence found that the complainant sustained six injuries on his person. The learned trial curt further found that by the prosecution evidence it was proved that the accused had committed offence under sections 323, 341 and 325 IPC. The learned trial court convicted the accused-petitioner and sentenced for different terms under the aforesaid offence vide its judgment dated 2.3.2005. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment of the learned trial court which was partly allowed to the extent that instead of sending the accused to jail, benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act was given and compensation to the extent of Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be paid to the injured. The contention of the learned counsel that in the instant case the prosecution was not able to prove its case is not liable to be accepted in view of the statement of injured PW-4 Rameshwar and also in view of the statement of the eye witness PW-2 Soumya. Dr. G.B. Singh has proved the injury report and found six injuries on the person of the complainant. The doctor has also proved the X-ray reports Ex.P-3 to P-5. Thus, in the above circumstances, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused. The findings of the learned trial court, in my opinion, are based on proper appreciation of evidence. The learned appellate court considering the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to be mandatory in nature and also taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the complainant, rightly gave benefit of the 4 provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. There does not appear any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner was liable to be acquitted in the present matter. In view of the fore-going discussion, I find no merit in this revision petition, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J)