2010 (4) Crimes 344 (P&H)
SHORT NOTE
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
T.P.S. Mann, J.
Chet Singh and Ors. —Appellant
versus
State of Punjab and Anr. —Respondents
Crl. Appeal No. 1234-AB of 2002
Decided on 19-1-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Unless the injury caused to victim was opined by doctor that it could have been sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code would not be attracted.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 307/34—Attempt to murder—Conviction of appellant—Compromise—Settlement between parties—Question whether offence of attempt to murder could be said to have been committed—Four accused persons duly armed assaulted victim over the issue of demolition of khal in the filed—Appellant No.1 gave bhala blow on head of victim—Injury was declared grievous in nature as there was fracture of parietal bone of skull—Doctor who later opined injury to be dangerous was on basis of x-ray report and not no basis of actual examination of injured—Such injury could have attracted offence u/s 307 IPC only if it was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death—No such opinion was solicited from doctor—Offence would fall u/s 325 IPC and in view of compromise, permission granted and appellants acquittal of offence in terms of compromise.

       Held: The main question which needs consideration in the present appeal is as to whether an offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be said to have been made out against the appellants or not. It was injury No.3 on the right side of the head of Pritam Singh, which was declared grievous in nature vide report Ex.P-15 given by PW-2 Dr Jasbir Singh Sandhu, as there was a fracture of parietal bone of skull. Later-on i.e. on 15.6.1999, when Pritam Singh injured had already been discharged from the hospital, the prosecution obtained an opinion Ex.P-17 from PW-1. Dr. Mahesh Chander Markar, declaring the said injury on the person .of Pritam Singh, as dangerous to life. This opinion was given on the basis of x- ray report Ex.P-18 and not on the basis of actual examination of the injured at that point of time. Though there was a fracture of the parietal bone underneath injury No.3, which was attributed to Chet Singh appellant, yet that by itself was not sufficient to hold that injury in question was dangerous to life. Such an injury could only be brought within the ambit of Section 307 IPC, if it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No such opinion had been solicited by the prosecution either during the course of the investigation or at the time of the trial from PW-1 Dr. Mahesh Chander Markan. As such, the opinion which remains out the to file regarding injury No.3 is that it was dangerous to life. That would not make out the commission of offence under Section 307 IPC. It would at the most bring the offence under Section 325 IPC, as there was a fracture of the parietal bone underneath injury No.3.

       In Tej Ram v. The State of Punjab, 1978 Chandigarh Law Reporter (Punjab & Haryana) 76, a similar situation arose where the injury in question had ruptured the lung of the victim and it was described by the examining doctor as dangerous to life, if not treated. The Court held that this was certainly not the type of the injury as would attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC, which envisages an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the injury described by the doctor was a lesser injury, which would fall within clause Eighthly of Section 320 IPC and, therefore, punishable under Section 326 thereof.

       The judgment in Tej Ram’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. There is no opinion given by PW-1 Dr Mahesh Chander Markan that injury No.3 on the person of Pritam Singh injured was sufficient the ordinary course of nature to cause death. His opinion remains only up to the injury being dangerous to life. As such, this injury can not be considered to fall within the ambit of Section 307 IPC. As the same had been caused by a blunt weapon and it had resulted into a fracture, the injury would, at the most, fall under Section 325 IPC.

       The question of compromise having been effected between the parties assumes significance now. The offence under Section 325 IPC is legally compoundable, though with the permission of the Court, as required by Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C, whereas for compounding offence under Section 323 IPC, no such permission is required as per Section 320 (1) Cr.P.C. Such a benefit can be extended to the accused not only during the trial of the case, but also at the time of hearing of the appeal or revision. Under Section 320 (8) Cr.P.C, the compounding/composition of the offence would have the effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence stood compounded. None of the offences, for which the appellants now stand convicted, is the one which can not be legaily compounded. There is sufficient material on the file to establish that a valid compromise stands arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, this benefit can be extended to the appellants. (Paras 12 to 14 and 16)

       Result : Appeal allowed