Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 44 (RAJ)

Gopal Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-07

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 2. By way of the instant revision petition, the petitioner/complainant Gopal Ram has approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 10.6.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2013 whereby, while considering the appeal preferred by the respondents no. 2 to 4 against the judgment of conviction dated 28.6.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deedwana, directed that the respondents no. 2 to 4 shall be released on probation for a period of two years and simultaneously directed each of the respondents no. 2 to 4 to make payment of Rs. 1,500/- each towards prosecution cost and compensation to be paid to the injured persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the injured Chanda Ram was caused 3 injuries including 1 head injury whereas injured Jagdish was caused 4 injuries including 1 head injury in the incident. Thus, the meager amount of compensation awarded to them whilst extend benefit of probation to the accused is totally incommensurate with the nature of the injuries caused to the injured. He thus prays that the amount of compensation awarded to the injured by the appellate Court deserves to be enhanced. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 4 vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 6. Both the injured Chanda Ram and Jagdish were caused large number of injuries in the indiscriminate assault launched by the accused. Both of them received head injuries. Injured Chanda Ram was also caused a grievous injury on his shoulder by blunt weapon. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that though the appellate Court was not totally unjustified in extending the benefit of probation to the respondents no. 2 to 4 but the compensation awarded by the appellate Court to the injured persons is grossly inadequate. 7. Accordingly, the instant revision petition deserves to be and is hereby partly allowed. The order dated 10.6.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana is modified and now, instead of a sum of Rs. 1,500/-, each of the accused respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs. 7. Accordingly, the instant revision petition deserves to be and is hereby partly allowed. The order dated 10.6.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana is modified and now, instead of a sum of Rs. 1,500/-, each of the accused respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each in the trial Court by way of prosecution cost and compensation within a period of three months from today. The amount so deposited shall be equally distributed amongst the two injured by way of compensation. In case of non-deposit of the aforesaid amount, the judgment dated 28.6.2013 passed by the trial Court shall become effective. 8. In case, the accused respondents have already deposited Rs. 1,500/- each in accordance with the appellate Court's order, the said amount shall be reduced from the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation.