1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Ramprasad Vs. Ghanshyam & ors. SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.409/2006. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 20th August, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Rajat Ranjan for the petitioner. Mrs.Nirmala Sharma PP for the State. BY THE COURT: This revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 16.2.2006 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jaipur District Jaipur in Sessions Case No.29/2005 whereby the accused respondents were acquitted from the offence under sections 148, 452, 308/149 IPC and benefit of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act was given to them for offence under sections 147, 336, 323 IPC. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case in view of the evidence adduced, the accused were not liable to be acquitted. It is further contended that the learned trial court has committed error in giving benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused respondents while convicting them for the offence under sections 2 147, 336 and 323 IPC. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the findings recorded by the learned trial court. I have considered the submissions made before me and carefully perused the judgment and evidence brought on record. It is to be seen that on 18.11.2004, Ram Prasad lodged a report at police station Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Sitapura, Jaipur with the averments that the accused-respondents on the day of incident entered in his house and gave beating and caused grievous injuries to him and his relatives. On this report, FIR No. 464/2004 was registered under sections 307, 323, 143, 148, 149 and 452 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed, charges were framed against the accused-respondents under sections 147, 148, 452, 336, 323 and 308/149 IPC. In all prosecution examined 15 witnesses to support its case. Several documents were tendered in evidence. The accused-respondents in their statements denied their involvement in the case. The learned trial court finding that the injuries were simple in nature and there was no grievous injury, acquitted the accused-respondents from the offence under sections 148, 452 and 308/149 IPC and convicted them for the offence under sections 147, 336 and 323 IPC. I do not find any reason to discuss the evidence in detail as the learned 3 counsel for the petitioner could not point out that the evidence has been misread by the learned trial court. The ingredients of Section 452 IPC could not be established. The injuries in this case are simple in nature. The accused-respondents were not liable to be convicted either under section 307 or 308 IPC. The learned trial court has given benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused-respondents looking to the nature of injuries and no previous conviction recorded against them. Thus, I do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-respondents were liable to be convicted by the learned trial court under section 307 or 308 IPC and also under section 452 IPC. The findings recorded are based on proper appreciation of evidence. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J) BBLM