1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Prabhu Dyal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.CR. REVISION PETITION NO.589/2006 Date of Order : August 14, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr.N.L.Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal Raj Mehta, P.P. for the State. Mr.N.S.Rathore, for respondent No.2 BY THE COURT: By the instant criminal revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-complainant has challenged the judgment and order dt. 15.4.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu (for short `the appellate court' hereinafter) whereby the appellate court while partly allowing the appeal filed by accused-respondent No.2 Hari Ram altered the conviction of the respondent No.2 from section 326 to section 324 I.P.C. and maintained the conviction for the offence under section 341 I.P.C. and sentenced the accused-respondent 2 No.2 for a fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo seven days' simple imprisonment and for the offence under section 324 I.P.C. sentenced the accused for a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment, to undergo two months' simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgment and order impugned, the complainant has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu (for short `the trial court' hereinafter) in Cr. Case No.351/2002 as also the judgment and order of the appellate court. I have also gone through the record of the trial court. In my view, the appellate court was justified in convicting the respondent No.2 for the offence under section 324 I.P.C. instead of section 326 I.P.C. I have also gone through the statements of the Doctor, who examined the injured namely PW.1 Dr. Ramesh Sundaria and proved the injury report of the petitioner Ex.P/1. In whole of his statement, he nowhere stated that injury on the tip of the nose is grievous in nature, which is evident from Ex.P/1. There is no evidence on record that the injury on the tip of nose resulted in disfiguration. There had not been any bony injury to the nose of the petitioner. It was only the damage of skin and muscle. Thus, from the evidence of the Doctor PW.1, it cannot be said that the injury No.1 suffered by the injured 3 petitioner is grievous in nature and thus, the appellate court was justified in holding the injury No.1 as simple. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, instead of sentencing the accused- respondent with any sentence of imprisonment, he was sentenced of fine, however, the amount of sentence of fine appears to be on lower side so far as section 324 I.P.C. is concerned. In this view of the matter, the order of appellate court is modified to the extent while maintaining the conviction of the respondent No.2 for the offences under sections 324 and 341 I.P.C., the sentence of fine for the offence under section 324 I.P.C. is enhanced to Rs.6750/-; sentence of fine for the offence under section 341 I.P.C. is maintained. The accused-respondent shall deposit the fine amount within one month, if not already deposited, before the trial court total amounting to Rs.7000/-. The fine amount shall be paid to the injured petitioner as compensation. With the above modification and the directions, the revision petition stands disposed of. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/-