[2025:RJ-JP:17697] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.518/2006 Banna Ram Jangid son of Surja Ram, R/o Rampura, Post Losal, District Sikar at present residing at Ward No.15, Shastri Nagar, Rani Sati Road, Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. Rajpal Singh son of Ganpat Ram, R/o Khiwasar, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar. 3. Viond Kumar son of Girdharilal, R/o Sigra, Police Station Mandawa, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanmay Dand, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainants : : : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP Mr. S.S. Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Mohan Choudhary, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order Reserved on :: 2 9/01/2025 Pronounced on :: 28 /04/2025 1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. alongwith Section 386 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.04.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar in Criminal Appeal No.50/2003, whereby the learned Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal of the accused-respondents against the judgment dated 04.07.2003, passed by CJM, Sikar in Criminal Case No.404/2002 by which the accused respondent No.2 -Rajpal Singh & accused-respondent No. 3-Vinod Kumar was convicted for [2025:RJ-JP:17697] (2 of 3) [CRLR-518/2006] the offences under Section 377, 120-B of IPC and Section 120-B of IPC respectively and imposed a sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.8000/- upon the accused respondents No. 2 & 3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts unequivocally that while there is no intent to seek an enhancement of the sentence, there is a strong demand for the grant of compensation. 4. The petitioner’s counsel emphasises that awarding adequate compensation to victims has become a fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence. With the enactment of Section 395 of the BNSS and the introduction of the victim compensation scheme under Section 396 of BNSS, the Courts are vested with the authority to award appropriate compensation. It is the Court's essential duty to ensure that the victims receive sufficient compensation. 5. The offence committed by accused-respondents are not only grave but also utterly abhorrent. The lower Court has failed to award any compensation on accused respondents No. 2 & 3 and instead imposed a meager amount of only Rs.8000/- as fine. 6. Given the petitioner's limited request, while affirming the sentence rendered by the appellate Court, this Court finds it necessary to order the accused respondents No. 2 & 3 to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to the victim within three months from today's date. The accused respondents No. 2 & 3 must deposit this amount by the aforesaid time frame, after which it shall be returned to the petitioner. If the accused respondents No. 2 & 3 neglect to deposit the compensation amount within the stipulated time frame, the trial court is directed to recover the [2025:RJ-JP:17697] (3 of 3) [CRLR-518/2006] amount from the accused respondents No. 2 & 3 in accordance with law. 7. The revision petition is decided accordingly. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-14