JUDGMENT : This criminal revision petition has been filed by the informant under Sections 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order, dated 17.02.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Darrang, Mangaldai in Criminal Appeal No. 2(D-1)/2009 by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence under Section 325 of the IPC as imposed by the learned trial court and convicting the respondents/accused under Section 323/34 of the IPC and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-each with a default clause in GR Case No. 239/2007 vide judgment and order, dated 26.12.2008. 2. The fact of the case is that, on 26.04.2007, Md. Mazibar Rahman/the revision petitioner/informant lodged an FIR before the Kharupetia Police Out Post under Dalgaon Police Station alleging that in the evening of 22.04.2007, some betel-nut trees belonging to him were up-rooted by the hail storm and the accused-respondents took away some betel nuts. On this, when the informant/revision petitioner protested, the accused-respondents assaulted him by lathi causing fracture injury on his right hand and injury on other parts of the body. They also assaulted one Gulesha Bewa and the sister of the informant causing injury to their persons. It has also been alleged that the accused-respondents took away some house hold articles along with the betel nuts. 3. On receipt of the FIR, Dalgaon Police Station registered a case, being No. 80/2007 under Sections 447/325/323/379/34 of the IPC, investigated into it, and after completion of investigation, laid a charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 447/352/325/34 of the IPC. 4. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 6 (six) witnesses, who were subjected to cross-examination by the defence. The defence examined none on its own. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. In their such statements, they are heard denying the accusations made against them. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted the accused persons under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-each with a default stipulation. 7. In their such statements, they are heard denying the accusations made against them. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted the accused persons under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-each with a default stipulation. 7. On appeal, as indicated above, the learned appellate court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Darrang, Mangaldai set aside the order of conviction and the sentence imposed upon the accused/respondents under Sections 325/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-each for offence under Sections 323/34 of the IPC. 8. I have heard Mr. A Ali, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/informant as well as Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent. 9. I have also perused the record of the learned trial court including the evidence and the judgments. 10. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/informant is that the injuries sustained by the informant make out a case punishable under Section 325 of the IPC and yet the learned appellate, court ignoring the medical evidence, recorded conviction of the accused persons under Section 323/34 of the IPC. Therefore, this court is required to see whether the evidence in the case has been correctly appreciated by the learned trial court or whether there is any such gross impropriety in appreciation of the evidence on record which would have justified conviction of the accused persons under Section 325 of the IPC. 11. In view of such submission, let us look into the evidence on record. 12. The medical report of injuries, available in the record and exhibited by PW5, Dr. Mukunda Das, shows that he had issued the medical certificate of injuries as the Dr., R.C. Das, who examined the injured was transferred in the meantime. As per the medical reports of injuries, marked as Exts.-1 and 2, the PW1/revision petitioner/informant suffered injuries on his right shoulder, lacerated injury over upper lip and movement of his shoulder joint is very painful. In the X-ray report, right shoulder shows fracture cromino process of the right scapular bone. The injury was grievous and caused by blunt weapon. As per the medical report, no injury was found on the persons of the PWs 3 and 4. 13. In the X-ray report, right shoulder shows fracture cromino process of the right scapular bone. The injury was grievous and caused by blunt weapon. As per the medical report, no injury was found on the persons of the PWs 3 and 4. 13. On examination of the medical evidence on record, particularly the evidence of the informant/PW1/revision petitioner, it appears that apart from him, PW3 and PW4 also sustained injuries. But, the medical report negatived such assertion of the PW1/informant/revision petitioner as no injury was found on the persons of the PWs 3 and 4. 14. So far the injury sustained by the revision petitioner/informant/PW1 is concerned, evidently the doctor who examined him has not been examined by the prosecution since he was transferred in the meantime. 15. The PW5, who exhibited the medical report of injury admitted that he did not examine the injured persons. Therefore, the defence did not get a chance to cross-examine the doctor who examined the injured persons. 16. In the absence of evidence of the doctor, who examined the PW1/informant/revision petitioner, it cannot be held safely, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the PW1/informant/revision petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the decision rendered by the learned appellate court convicting the accused-respondents persons under Section 323/34 of the IPC is not found to be inconsistent with the evidence on record. Thus, in the absence of any impropriety or illegality, no interference is called for with the judgment of the learned appellate court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this court. 17. However, as the revision petitioner/informant/PW1 sustained injuries necessitating him medical treatment at Kharupetia C.H.C. as well as in the Sanjevani Hospital at Guwahati, this court is of the view that he needs to be compensated for the injuries he sustained. 18. Accordingly, the accused-respondents are ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/-each as compensation for the injuries sustained by the PW1/revision petitioner/informant as provided in Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.PC. 19. With the above, the judgment of the learned trial court is modified to the extent of payment of compensation. It is made clear that in the event of default of payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/-each by the accused persons, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days each. 20. 19. With the above, the judgment of the learned trial court is modified to the extent of payment of compensation. It is made clear that in the event of default of payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/-each by the accused persons, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days each. 20. Accordingly, this revision petition stands disposed of imposing the compensation, stated above, in addition to the fine imposed upon the accused persons by the learned appellate court. 21. The accused-respondents are directed to surrender before the learned trial court to serve out the sentence. 22. Return the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.