1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 513/2006 (Dhan Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of Judgment : 08.08.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Pradeep Shah for the appellant. Mr. V.R.Mehta, P.P. Ms. Manju Ranwa for the respondent No.2. BY THE COURT:- By order dated 9.4.2007 this Court directed to list the appeal for final disposal as soon as the record is received. The record has been received. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is finally heard and decided in view of the order of this Court dated 9.4.2007. The accused appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 11 (2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act ' hereinafter) r/w Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and order dated 9.5.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial 2 court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.34/05, whereby the trial court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 308, 324 and 323 IPC and instead of sentencing the appellant at once to any imprisonment released him on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Act provided the appellant furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- and a surety bond in the like amount to keep peace and tranquillity and be of goods behaviour and shall not repeat such offences for a period of three years as also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- which on being deposited was ordered to be paid to the injured respondent NO.2 Mohanalal. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the trial court is on higher side. Learned counsel submits that injured suffered the injuries vide Ex.P-6. The injured came with a case that the appellant inflicted injury by lathi and injury No.2 could not have been caused by lathi. I have carefully gone through the injury report. According to the doctor who examined the injured, the injured suffered lacerated wound 5cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on top of skull (right perieto occipital area) and second injury is incised wound 1.5 cm x ½ cm x bony deep, upper 1/3 right forearm and third injury is complain of pain in elbow. In the statement, injured PW-2 stated that the appellant was hiding a weapon 3 which appears to be a lathi and inflicted injuries on his skull, elbow etc. The statement of the injured is corroborated from the evidence of other eye witnesses as also the medical evidence. Though injury No.2 is said to be incised wound, but so far as injury No.1 is concerned it is by blunt object and it is on vital part of the body i.e. right perieto occipital area of the skull i.e. top of the skull according to medical evidence. In the circumstances therefore, the conclusion recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be erroneous. Even otherwise, looking to the nature of the injuries and the fact that one of the injury has been inflicted on the vital part of the body i.e. skull, therefore, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation awarded to the injured in any manner cannot be said to be excessive warranting interference in appeal. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the judgment and order impugned warranting interference. The trial court has taken a lenient view with regard to the quantum of sentence. No further interference is called for. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp