[2025:RJ-JP:16134] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2226/2018 Sumer Singh S/o Shri Jagdish Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Loyal Ps Khetri Nagar Teh. Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Raj. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Gajraj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Shubham Sain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 15/04/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred aggrieved and dissatisfied from order dated 26.09.2018 in criminal appeal no. 112/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu whereby appellate court while maintaining judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2018 in criminal case no. 147/2009 (234/2013) under Section 341, 323, 325/34 of IPC has set aside the order of sentence and extended benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and further directed to pay compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 5. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the trial court and the appellate court both have committed serious error while convicting the present petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner was not involved in the incident but he was arrayed as an accused due to animosity between the parties. He also referred [2025:RJ-JP:16134] (2 of 4) [CRLR-2226/2018] the discrepancies and submitted that the witnesses examined by prosecution are interested witnesses and the prosecution has failed to examine any of independent witnesses. He further submitted that the appellate court has imposed fine of ₹25,000/- as compensation and same is exorbitant in view of financial condition of petitioner accused. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. On the basis of report dated 05.04.2009 exhibited as Ex. P/1 filed by PW-1 Basti Ram FIR no. 38/2009 was registered at P.S. Khetri Nagar, District Jhunjhunu and after investigation police has filed a charge-sheet against Sumer Singh and Ram Niwas under Sections 341, 323, 325/34 of IPC. During trial one of the accused Ram Niwas has expired and proceedings against Ram Niwas were dropped. The prosecution has examined six witnesses and exhibited eight documents. The present petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he opted not to submit any defence evidence. Only one document was exhibited as defence document during trial. 6. Learned trial court after considering the evidence on record has convicted present petitioner accused under Section 323, 341, 325/34 of IPC and further sentenced him. On an appeal preferred by present petitioner, the appellate court while maintaining conviction has set aside the sentence and extended the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. [2025:RJ-JP:16134] (3 of 4) [CRLR-2226/2018] 7. A perusal of statement of PW-1 Basti Ram indicate that two individuals both were charge-sheeted by police have assaulted him. The injuries sustained by Basti Ram were examined by PW-4 Dr. Raj Kumar who exhibited injury report Ex. P/8 and also exhibited X-ray plate Ex. P/7 along with report. The opinion of PW- 4 clearly indicate that there was a fracture of seventh rib. The statement of Basti Ram was supported by medical report and moreover, the injuries sustained by Basti Ram were examined by PW-4. The X-ray was conducted by PW-3 Arjun Lal who was radiographer. There was no delay in reporting matter to the police and further the police has produced the victim for medical examination on very same day. The statement of other witnesses including PW-2 and PW-3 have supported the case of prosecution particularly injured Basti Ram, therefore, looking to evidence on record, the trial court has not committed any error while recording conviction of present petitioner. The discrepancies and contradictions as referred by learned counsel are not sufficient to set aside the conviction recorded by learned trial court. 8. The appellate court while considering the same evidence has affirmed the order of conviction and appellate court while considering the evidence on record has looked into the evidence, therefore, the appellate court has not committed any error in affirming the judgment of conviction. The appellate court while considering the provision of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has extended the benefit of probation to the petitioner as the maximum punishment under Section 325 is upto 7 years. As regard to imposition of compensation under Section 5 of Probation of Offenders is concerned, the injured has sustained [2025:RJ-JP:16134] (4 of 4) [CRLR-2226/2018] one grievous injury and that too in seventh rib and same was corroborated by PW-4 and PW-3 in their deposition before the trial court, therefore, the compensation is not too high or exorbitant. There is no ground to reduce the amount of compensation. 9. In view of discussion made hereinabove, there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment passed by the trial court, recorded on the basis of material available on record, therefore, there is no case for interference, is made out. 10. Hence, the revision petition sans merit and same is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. 12. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /102